Rating: 
Summary: Not that bad!!!
Review: I have seen this movie with my brother and father and were impressed by it. It is a very good, entertaining movie that should have a way higher rating because it is very much like Lord of the Rings and is probably even better than the Fellowship. This movie should have been a lot more popular and should have gotten more money. I guess people this days just don't like good normal movies, they are all into non-making sense movies (...) where cartoons show up an the bride beats 50 people with swords by herself or (...) where nothing makes sense. It's just so stupid that good movies aren't liked and bad movies are adored. This movie is about a couple of people who are almost all archaelogists and go back through time to try and save one of the people's father and return back to their homes. While the people are there the french and english are fighting and getting more serious with each other. This movie was great and I suggest it to everyone. I still can't believe it has such a LOW RATING.
Rating: 
Summary: Time bomb!
Review: Richard Donner beats out Ed Wood for the worst director in filmdom with this cheesy effort. The movie combines a complete lack of directorial vision with stilted acting, inane dialogue, some hackneyed, cookie-cutter thrills and an infernal, non-stop music score. The overall result is a trashy presentation of what should have been a robust and entertaining sci-fi movie. Truly third-rate! Don't hold your breath waiting for any of the elements that make the novel by Michael Chriton such an interesting and exciting read. The film bears absolutely no resemblance. Save your money AND your time folks ... buy the book instead!
Rating:
Summary: A severe disappointment
Review: I loved reading the book Timeline - I've read it twice and it is one of my favorite books of the last few years. I didn't expect the movie to be nearly as good - movies seldom are - but I didn't expect it to be terrible! From the first few minutes of the movie, I knew something was wrong. The acting seemed poor - the dialog unnatural, and they were cutting things out right and left. Not only did they cut too many scenes - they also fundamentally changed the plot. It's really disappointing when such a good book is ruined in such a poor movie. I actually had trouble watching it. Even though I am clearly biased by reading the book, other less biased people who watched it with me agreed that it was poorly done. What a shame. Don't waste your time with this one - read the book instead!
Rating:
Summary: A masterpiece!!
Review: I have just seen this movie today and was intrigued by it because it had spectacular special effects when the French and English were fighting at the castle. This movie is a true masterpiece and I can't believe it has such a low rating because the movie is great. Probably all the people that gave this movie a low rating must not get this movie or have a high expectancy to be perfect. Others might have not liked this movie because they think that the idea of going back in time is absurd and they probably don't know important historical facts concerning Europe. This movie is about a group of people who go back in time to save one of the people's father because he is stuck in that time. While the people are there, the war between France and England becomes more perilous and bloody. At the end a few of the people go back to the future, while one stays behind because of love. I recommend this movie to all of you because it has historical facts and is a lot of fun to watch. It is worth buying. Great!!
Rating: 
Summary: Stripped-down vehicle.
Review: The plot holes in TIMELINE are monsterous. To have sucessfully pulled off a filmed version of the highly entertaining CRICHTON novel, the final cut would've been four and a half hours long and budgeted at over a hundred mil. A mountain of useful plot info was untapped making the movie confusing for the uninitiated, and unsatisfying for readers of the book. Not a bad flick, but none too engaging either, TIMELINE is just kind of there. Read the book instead- it's far more cinematic and thrilling than the film.
Rating:
Summary: Read the book instead
Review: this movie was alright but it could've been a lot better. i didn't particularly like the cast. this movie really shows that paul walker can't really act. there are some intense moments but they become unmemorable and fade away. it isn't even that entertaining. just a movie to watch if you're bored or if there's nothing else good to watch. let me tell you though, the book by michael crichton is VERY, VERY GOOD. i got so much more out of the book than watching this movie. the movie lacks depth and meaning while the book actually brings you back to the midieval times and makes you experience hell. it is terrifying, gripping, and interesting. the movie is...not.
Rating:
Summary: Buy the book instead
Review: The book kept me awake far into the night with its attention to historic detail combined with high-tech plausibility. This is something only Michael Crichton could do so well. Highly recommended. The movie .....a cure for insomnia. Billy Connolly in a dramatic role? Sad thing is, he's the best in the film. Horrible acting all around. Cheap sets; cheap thrills. Nuff said. Waste of time. Save your bucks - buy the book for 1/3 the price and settle down for hours of enjoyment.
Rating:
Summary: Timeline - Time to stop bashing it
Review: I've read the book tons of times, and while every little
detail wasn't brought out in the film (which would have
made it around 6 hours long), the spirit is there. Basically : TIMELINE was the best film of 2003,
I saw it just before ROTK came out and believe
me next to timeline, return of the king sucked.
Rating: 
Summary: Not such a bad adaption after all...
Review: While it has been a while since I have read the book, "Timeline" was just one of those stories I truly enjoyed. The movie, while omitting some parts of the novel, actually follows the general plot of the book. A few changes are made to the beginning and end, but overall the actual storyline is similar to the novel. Many of the parts cut out of the book are actually parts that, given the cast, are better left out. The majority of these scenes involved the character Chris, played by Paul Walker. Luckily, the movie does not make him the main character like he was in the book. The less screen time of Paul is definately better. My favourite character in the book, Andre Marek, is excellently portrayed by Gerard Butler and he saves the film from being completely worthless. Anna Friel as Lady Claire as well as other supporting characters are also great performances. I understand why many would not like the movie since there are many others in a similar genre. For me, I have never really been into these kind of movies and while I am an avid Crichton reader, I did not read this book when it came out due to it's subject matter. When I finally decided to read the book on a flight, it became my second favourite next to "Jurassic Park". This was the first film I really saw about medieval times, and even though the movie could have been better, I enjoyed it. I think this was because I love the story so much and the movie was not a total detour from this story. A few points to make that many people seem to nit-pick about: 1. The fact that they changed Chris' character to be the son of the professor instead of his student is not a big deal. Also, I don't see why it isn't plausable that he could not be the son of a Scottish professor just because he is American. This is the stupidest argument I have ever heard since I know many people who are American and have foreign parents! 2. Yes, the fact they spoke American when they went back in time was definately unplausable, however, I would have preferred this than to see subtitles the whole movie. This was made from a sci-fi novel, it was not mean to be an ultimately realistic or overly historically accurate movie. They should have kept the earpieces from the book in though to explain it. Overall, I really like the movie, and think people should give it a try. While it's definately not perfect, it is fun and keeps fairly true to the book.
Rating:
Summary: not great, but entertains
Review: I saw Timeline because a friend of mine read the book, and said it was great. The film has an unoriginal yet promising premise,about a group of scientists who go back in time to save there professor back in the dark ages. The lead actor is played by the hugely miscast Paul Walker. Paul is the same lunkhead from the Fast and the Furious films, and is just as awful in this film as in those. His love interest is played by the awful Francis O'Conner. The chemistry is pretty bad between these two. The film has some very exciting battle scenes as the students try to save their professor and escape back to present time. The films saving grace is Gerard Butler who plays Walkers best friend. You can actually tell this guy is a trained actor and does his best with the weak script that was handed to him. If our friends at Paramount had focused a little more on casting quality actors other than hiring a bunch of pretty faces, this might have been a better film. I admit I was entertained by this film, so it did succeed in some ways, but dont expect much.
| 
