Rating: 
Summary: don't
Review: Richard Donner usually does good movies. Not today. This is another example of a good book that was made into a terrible movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Not that great, but that castle siege...
Review: Was insanely cool! People keep talking down about the movie as if they left in the first hour. It is about 2 hours, and the second hour is amazing.Yes this film is bad, but the action at the end is great. I mean, you can't connect with any character except Merrik or whatever. Honestly, that was the only name I picked up in the entire movie. That and Franceau, but they say his name alot. ----The sound is incredible---- . I have a pretty good speaker system and it is unbelievable! The castle siege sounds tremendously awesome, and it looks pretty cool when you get trebuchets hurling stones of fire at the castle. If you love sound or if you love great action scenes, i'd rent this movie. If it comes out on DTS, get that immediately.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing Book-to-Script Changeover
Review: Having read the Crichton book of the same title I felt it necessary to see the film, to satisfy my curiosity if nothing else. While some changes may have been necessary to pad out the script and keep the movie flowing, there is no excuse for the major changes which ruined the script. Bad acting also followed this film, and there was no real connection between any of the actors. This film would appeal to many if they enjoy a good action film, but for anyone who read the book it is just a let-down. The one star I award this film is out of sympathy only.
Rating:
Summary: It's Too Spooky!
Review: What could be duller and more pointless than the 100 years war? Perhaps making a film about a group of archaeologists who time travel to fourteenth century France.
The originality of this film is that it is so lacking in and original idea. We have been to this place before in the much more interesting and creative 'Stargate'. That film took us on a real adventure to a place where all history was Earth history was born and where a force of evil spawned the early gods.
In 'Timeline' we get to visit a grimy pointless war in at the close of the dark ages with a group of myopic and expendable characters. What is the outcome? It is a predictable story that limps along to a forgone conclusion, a waste of talent and celluloid.
What could be worse than that? Bad acting and worse writing is the answer and it is served to perfection in this oeuvre of trash. The failure of the film begins with the writing and then segues into the lifeless direction. Richard Donner has never surpassed his pedestrian work on 1978's 'Superman'. It all finally comes to a thudding stop at what is referred to as acting.
Paul Walker is not an actor without talent. He was superb in "Pleasantville" and hit all the right notes in "The Fast And The Furious". Yet here he squanders his good looks and talent on bad writing and dull direction. Billy Connolly who was so brilliant in 'Mrs. Brown' is the one of two who comes off with any grace in this misfire. The other who escapes with little damage is Gerard Butler who is always impressive. He takes some very bad dialog and improbable situations and turns them to his advantage.
The high school senior year acting class honors however to to Francis O'Connor. Is it the writing that makes her so bad? Almost anyone would have a struggle with such howling lines to read. Perhaps it is a lack of experience. No, that can't be it. She has done some fine work in the past from 'Mansfield Park' to 'A.I.'. I finally figured out what bothered me so about her in 'Timeline'. Its the strangest thing, almost spooky in fact, is the casting of this young actress who looks like she went to a plastic surgeon and asked to be made to look like a middle aged Barbara Hershey. This is what kept me riveted to the screen throughout the unfortunate experience. I was fascinated at the creepiness of the resemblance between the young Francis O'Connor and older and very preserved Miss Hershey.
Now there is an idea for a science fiction film. An aging actress from the 60's has herself cloned so that her image may go on in films making bad choices and worse films for eternity. That is until someone from the past shows up in a time machine and puts an end to the endless dry rot. Come to think of it, has anyone seen Barbara Hershey lately? It's too spooky!
Rating:
Summary: awful... awfulawfulawful...
Review: This was terrible. I really enjoyed the book, it was well written, and seemed like it was kind of historically accurate. At least from the viewpoint of someone who never studied the period. But they took everything from the book that was good, and threw it out the window to make this load. The joust, the insane knight, the translators, the attack on the monastary, all gone. Frank Gordon turns into a sniveling Marine? Marek wasn't an heroic character like in the book, Chris adds nothing to the movie, and Donniger? Why was he against bringing them back? Instead, we get a French translator, Gordon takes a trip to the past (why???), the professor is Chris's father and Chris isn't an archaeologist, the monastary is reduced to a bit part, the lady Claire has no intrigue to her... I was bitterly disappointed in this weak film. It's not worth buying, and it really wasn't even worth renting.
Rating: 
Summary: The Book Was Better? Who Cares?
Review: Not having any idea what movie I was about to watch, when I went to see timeline in theatres, it instantly became one I couldnt wait to get on DVD! there should be about 100 reveiws already on the movie, so I wont beat around the bush, and explain the plot for the 101st time. Why this movie has been put down so much is suprising to me! So its not accurate to the book? Has any movie based from a book ever been 100%? The movie is BASED on the book, not exactly PAGE TO SCREEN transfer. I havent read the book, so I wouldnt know, but i really dont care, I thought this movie was very good. It was full of action, suspence, bit of sci-fi, bit of love... is there a bunch of rascist reveiwers not liking the fact that France is the good guys in the film or somthing? I saw nothign wrong at all with this film, and thought it was very intresting... it does have a bit of a rocky start that left me wondering "what is happening?" but it soon sorts it self out and makes sense! Tho, one thing I will say, if any Billy Connely fans have HEARD about this movie, and want to see it because he is in it? Dont expect a barrel of laughs! Theres a small amount of humour, but he is mostly acting on a more serios side! The bonus features I gotta admit are some of the most boring things ive seen! theres 3 behind the scene/on location things that go for about 20 minutes each, they did bore the **** out of me. And the other features where pretty dull and boring too! to me anyway. I think this movie is great, i give it 4 stars, very intresting all the way, and very entertaining! Richard Donnar has done a great film here, and presented it in a way thats not over the top, not going for special FX too much, and filling it with a sense of humour, and of coarse the Donnar magic touch to action. Give it a rent at least. Bugger the book.
Rating:
Summary: There's a better film in here somewhere
Review: Maybe one and a half stars would be more accurate. After all, I've given one star to House of the Dead and this isn't nearly that level of dreck. I probably wouldn't have disliked 'Timeline' so much if I wasn't positive that there wasn't a better movie buried in here. The problems abound, however, and there are unresolved issues pretty much across the board. The script is an absolute mess. Especially in a time-travel movie, when you create a set if rules for the science of your film, you HAVE TO FOLLOW THEM. For example, it's commented in the beginning of the film that no modern weaponry can make the leap back. OK, the technology hadn't been invented yet, that makes sense. So what do we see not ten minutes later ... a grenade? I'm not even going to mention how the ending of Merrick's character should have completely changed the future or the way a team of archeologists would so recklessly think nothing of interfering with the past. When writing this kind of a script, a screen-writer HAS to follow the rules he sets for himself. I also never did come to understand why 3 or 4 people had to get killed going back to save a 70 year old man. Why exactly was he so important that you couldn't just leave him there? There were also a great number of characters were only developed half-way. I'm thinking, in particular, of every employee in the corporation that built the time machine. It seemed like there was more going on there that we, as an audience, were filled in on. The set design is poor. I couldn't have put it better when another reviewer stated that the film looked like it was made on the back-lot of Monty-Python's Holy Grail. Everything just looked like it was made of cardboard. Speaking of cardboard, the acting's awful. He seems to be my new whipping boy, but I'll say it again ... PAUL WALKER CANNOT ACT. He HAS to be the worst actor of the modern era. He CANNOT carry and headline a film, he doesn't have the ability. Other then that the cast list was pretty well loaded with talent that was never cultivated properly. The directing was lazy. I'm normally a big Richard Donner fan. There have only been a handful of movies he's done that I really think were stinkers. Unfortunately, this is one of them. His resume is too loaded with great films to think that this was anything other then a hiccup. I'm not letting him off the hook either though. He had a TON of resources at his disposal and just couldn't bring ANY of it together. The time and money that were pumped into 'Timeline' really should have made for a better product then we were ultimately going to get. I'm instead left with the feeling that I'd be more inclined to just go watch 'Braveheart' again.
Rating:
Summary: Filmed In Rural Quebec To Save On Costs?
Review: Time travel is an exhausted movie theme. Sometimes it works, but most times it doesn't. Welcome to a time where it doesn't. Michael Crichton's novel gets 'medieval' quality in this poorly executed film. You can read the plot in the description above, but basically, several time travel students go back to 14th Century France to rescue their founder. There are no great special effects and everything looks like a standard (or substandard) movie sound stage. The acting is as wooden as the stage sets and every sincere attempt at emotion is embarrassingly tepid. The medieval castle scenes resemble something Monty Python would assemble and the fighting scenes are cut so poorly that you never know who's hitting whom. But that's being picky. My biggest beef is the time machine. It took years to invent and assemble and gets blown apart in a (really dumb) accident. But, it is repaired within the six hour window needed to bring everyone back. How's that again? Well, this is Hollywood, not literature. No need to discuss the extras other than to say there is no need for three documentaries on "Journey through Time". Next film please.
Rating:
Summary: More Like A Made For TV Movie
Review: Like many of the reviewers, I was expecting something a little different - albeit, much better here. Timeline reminded me of a bad made-for-TV movie. With it's no name actors, unlikeable characters (goons) and plot holes, it certainly was not at the level you would expect from someone who wrote Jurassic Park. Although, I don't blame Michael Crichton for this dud. If you were expecting an interesting time travel jaunt through 14th century France. Forget it. The historical characters portrayed in this movie are all cardboard cut-outs with nice teeth. In fact, what I found most annoying was how easily they converse with the 21st century visitors. The English that was spoken 600 years ago would sound like a foreign language today. You wouldn't be able to understand them. In addition, due to the lack of nutrition, people from that era would have been much smaller in stature (the average man perhaps no taller than 5'4"). As such, if you're going to make a movie about people traveling back through time, at least portray the basic historical facts correctly.
Rating: 
Summary: TIMELINE: Should Have Been Much Better
Review: When Michael Chrichton's TIMELINE lit up the best seller list in 2002, he portrayed a world not unlike that of his earlier JURASSIC PARK. In both texts, he transported an intrepid group of scientist-adventurers into a realm than both threatened them and uplifted them. The film version of JURASSIC PARK managed to maintain this linked thread of danger and wonder, but in the case of TIMELINE, what director Richard Donner has done was to unlink this thread by eliminating both senses and substituting a messy soup of multiple points of view, none of which succeed in engaging the viewer. The primary problem had nothing to do with the usual trouble spot of time travel movies: the paradoxes inherent in changing the past to avoid a sure catastrophe. What is at issue here is Donner's inability to present a tightly focused persona with whom the audience could connect. There was no Sam Neill from JURASSIC PARK who could filter the many divergent viewpoints. The relatively unknown Paul Johnston, with his surfer dude mode of speaking, simply lacks the gravitas to carry the film. There were far too many scenes that made no sense. I had trouble keeping up with identifying the armed knights as French or English. And when the viewer cannot easily discern one set of potential antagonists from the other, then the director, by default, must rely on special effects to distract the viewer from the logical flaws large enough to steer a time machine through. The plot mirrors on a superficial level Chrichton's book. An evil scientist-industrialist accidentally creates a time tunnel that can open a portal to 14th century France. Small groups of 20th century flunkies are whisked back to medieval times where they are stranded, one of whom is the father of the surfer-dude, who cleverly leaves behind some incriminating 600 year old clues to convince his beach boy son to lead a rescue mission. If the director goes to the trouble of leading the audience to think that one character ought to be the lead, then that character ought to do so. Instead, surfer dude defaults his leader role to a variety of others, all of whom are infinitely more interesting. There are several subplots that momentarily cause one to forget the lack of a central dramatic vision. What emerges at the end is a time travel film that shouts out for a firmer hand that should have gripped the director's helm. Donner was not the firm hand and TIMELINE suffers for that.
| 
