Rating: 
Summary: Throughly entertaining, even if it does detour from the book
Review: I really enjoyed this movie. Yes, it is somewhat unrealistic and some of the acting gets cheesy at parts, but as an action/adventure movie it delivers. I am a big fan of the book, and was excited to find out they made a movie. Of course, I didn't have high expectations since the movie versions are usually worse than the book, but in this case it was a pretty good adaption of the book. Yes, alot of stuff was left out, but in order to make this book a movie, it would have to be otherwise the movie would be 5 hours long! Even at 2 hours long, it seems a bit rushed, especially at the beginning, but I believe if it were longer it would not work. While all the scientific research in the book was great, it would just be boring in the movie, so I am glad that it was given very light treatment. Gerard Butler is by far the best actor in the movie, and the star as far as I'm concerned. I'm glad they kept the two major twists in the book, even if they were changed slightly. Overall, a really entertaining movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Reading the book helped a lot
Review: A good time was had by all!! Well, not really. There was a lot of violence, and the good guys were at the wrong end a few times. But the screenplay bore a resemblance to Michael Crichton's wonderful tale. The sets seemed cheesy. Was Castlegard really that small? The computer game seemed to give a much better depiction of the book. But, if you haven't read the book, and you got lost figuring out the battle logistics, and who was French and who was English, you're not alone. And I read the book, listened to it on CD, played the computer game and still got lost at times. But I thought it was a good movie and deserves better reviews than it is getting.
Rating:
Summary: "People CARED about each other then. They had honor..."
Review: After reading the overwhelmingly negative critic reviews for "Timeline", I didn't want to go, but I got talked into it. And guess what? It's actually good. Good, and in certain spots, kind of great.Based on the book by Michael Crichton (from which significant details have been changed), "Timeline" stars Paul Walker, the poor-man's Keanu, as the son Professor Johnston, a devoted archeologist who is working on a dig in France. Johnston has been receiving advice from a tech company based in New Mexico, who mysteriously seem to know just where to dig for all sorts of interesting finds. The professor gets suspicious, hops on a plane to New Mexico, and disappears. His son and some of the archeologists pay the tech company a visit, and are shocked to find that the Professor has gone back in time to the 14th century, and somehow managed to get himself lost in medieval France. They follow, and our story takes off. Director Richard Donner (of Die Hard fame) is much to be commended for keeping it real, literally. Special effects are used sparingly; when we see thousand of flaming arrows hurtling threw the air in a battle scene, they are REAL arrows, not CGI. Ditto for fireballs and castles and all sorts of medieval coolness. The story is tighter than a lot of Hollywood sci-fi, and the technology fairly feasible. Characters are usually a moot point in this type of film, but the wonderful romance between Marek (played by uber-hottie Gerard Butler) and Lady Claire (Anna Friel) is utterly riveting. Watch her eyes when he insists on going back for his friends. Such a sweet and noble romance is rare in Hollywood these days. Everyone else in the cast does a good job running around and looking frightened. Even though this is an action movie, "Timeline" has a surprising amount of nuance and subtlety, even when fireballs are raining from the heavens. Entertaining and even exciting, it's well worth the price of a matinee at least. GRADE: B+
Rating: 
Summary: Probably one to rent
Review: The book was an entertaining read and when I saw the previews I was intrigued. How many of Crichton's books have resulted in bad movies? He is a great story teller for the most part, but at times he goes a bit over the top. The book includes many history lessons and as usual, Crichton does a lot of research which he interweaves in the fictional story. The movie of course, cannot include all those history lessons, else it become a documentary instead, so it basically stuck to following the action and adventure part of the story. This wasn't a bad tact to follow, perhaps it was the only way to make this into a popular movie, however it may leave some of the book readers feeling a bit cheated. I was trying to guess how the movie would handle certain portions and this fact hurt the viewing somewhat, I should have just erased from my mind the reading of the book as there was no way to include the intricate and complicated plot of the novel into a film. I'm not sure if I want to recommend this as a theater experience or simply as something to rent. It was entertaining, but I won't go as far as to say this is a great movie. I don't think I have a great desire to see it again in the near future, and I suppose that says something in itself. One of the problems, as I see it, was that the book had more room to devote to many characters, however, the movie, being limited in scope and time, doesn't have the room to give us a true protagonist nor even a true villain. The story was hard to follow on the screen and the battle scenes were not dramatic enough nor choreographed well enough to make them worthwhile in and of themselves. All in all I give this a (cautious) mild thumbs up (some will hate this movie due to weak characterization, poor dialogue, hard to follow plot and the fact that it departs from the book too much) it wasn't boring, but not something to get worked up over either.
Rating:
Summary: A romp through the 14th century
Review: Timeline is a good romp through the French countryside with swords and maidens in distress while English and French soldiers fight over a castle perched atop a rocky promontory. If you're looking for good history, this is not the place to look. If you're looking for an action flick, where the women are as smart as the men, and some young hunks get to swing swords, it's not too bad. A lot of people get killed when Chris Johnston and his friends go back to the Dordogne Valley in the 14th century to rescue his archaeologist father. Professor Johnston was back there because, as the leader of a dig at ruins in the French valley, he has become suspicious of the motives of Robert Doniger head of the company that is financing his work. Some attention is paid by the participants to the possible changes to history their presence might make. But no one counted on a dumb Marine's taking a grenade with him through the wormhole which made time travel possible. The young people face enemies on both sides of the wormhole, some with swords and the will to kill, some with degrees and money and the will to kill. As in all such stories, there is romance, fireworks, heroism, and a few good laughs. Check your disbelief at the door, and enjoy.
Rating: 
Summary: A Great Book Gets Butchered Again
Review: I went to see the first showing of Timeline today and all I can say is I should have stayed home and cleaned the toilet I would have enjoyed the time much better. I am a big fan of Mr. Crichtons books and always am at the bookstore the first day whenever a new one arrives (Sorry Amazon). I read Timeline and was not let down it was great and painted the story as only he could. Therefore, I anticipated that movie and when it came out today, I bought my ticket and corn, sat in my chair centered in the middle of the theater and was insulted with a 119-minute ambush or crap. The storyline was a vague interpretation of the book if the screenwriter was on a three day drunk. There was no story set up they assumed you read the book. The high-tech toys were poor and not true to the book and the mid evil times are better depicted at a junior high school theater group. The actors lean too much on regional dialect and poor acting is ramped. My suggestion is to re-read the book and let your mind paint the picture.
Rating:
Summary: Rough cut or final film?
Review: In late July, I had the opportunity to attend a screening of this film while in L.A. The trouble with advanced screenings, you're never sure if you're seeing a final cut, a rough cut, or something which will be retooled based on audience response. Overall, my impression was that it was closer to a final cut than anything else. The plot finds several 21st century archeologists in 15th century France, on a mission to rescue their mentor. The Professor was sent back and left for dead by the Bill Gates-like mogul who stumbled upon the time travel technology. Director Richard Donner seems set on a low-tech approach to the special effects. A refreshing change in these days of everything being CGI. While a bit predictable at points, the story flows fairly well and makes for a fun time at the movies.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful, edge-of-your-seat visit to 14th C
Review: My first couple of Crichton novels taught me that I don't like his writing, so I never read his novels, certainly not nowadays. Sometimes, though, they make good movies. This one was great! I literally found myself leaning forward with tension through 95% of the film. We had no idea whether history could be changed or not, if it would be, or who would get out alive in which period. Down to nearly the last minute, it seemed it could go any way. The characters are all engaging. The antagonists manage not to be merely villains, but create flashes of sympathy for their motivations. The romance elements are handled so as to give us the most warmth without any overboard fuss (Richard Donner did direct "Ladyhawke," that most romantic of heroic fantasies). The main group are convincing as innocent academics who have never really considered that violence could be directed their way, or they would have to use it to stay alive. While they may have studied the 100 Years War, they can honestly ask uncomprehendingly why they would need some former Marines along for protection while they look for the professor missing in time. (This was an LOL for me.) Their innocence gets stripped away, and they are put to dealing with 14th C survival with 1990s tender sensibilities. Andre Marek, the real focus character, apparently is a re-enactor, but while he has skills with the weapons, the realities of using them take adjustment. One point rarely made in time-travel stories, this one slides by without pausing to explain: that "changing history" depends on whether the so-called history received by characters in the future is accurate or not. Certainly it isn't always (I have one encyclopedia and two almanacs, 1959, 1943 & 1968, that give three conflicting dates for the Great SF Earthquake, which was then in living memory). In this case the stories of the fate of La Roque have become as innaccurate as popular myths of Coeur de Lion's imprisonment or the life of El Cid. This allows elbow room for characters to strive and possibly succeed, simply because received history may have lost the story. My husband's degree is in history. I trained in archaeology, and have been a medievalist for (ahem)ty-five years or so. We were suckered in by the beautiful attention to period detail (unlike the rampant anachronism in "The 13th Warrior," which we enjoyed despite the design choices). The casual brutality and innate chivalry of the period was brought out, as when Clare's hangmen protect her from an explosion. The high-carbon steel blades are blackened from age (it takes about two years in a kitchen knife) rather than being mirror-bright from the store. The English use of primitive cannon is a little-explored item. The armies are truly the size of medieval knightly armies: small. The seige scenes are spectacular with flaming loads flung by the trebuchets amidst rains of fire arrows. The hand-to-hand combat is good, competent, gets the job done and looks reasonable. It is not spectacular and engaging as, say, a William Hobbs fight ("Ladyhawke" comes to mind again). The acting and drama through the combats, though, is first rate, as the scales tip back and forth between disaster and victory. If you like countdown action, this is great, as the film counterpoints tech disaster in 2004 with threat of death in 1357. If you like medieval authenticity, this is great. If you like time-travel stories that you can't predict, this is great. We don't go to theatres: we just buy DVDs. As of June, this is the best movie we've seen in 2004. (People who think the story starts in 1971 or thereabouts apparently think they had little cell phones, MP3 players, laptop computers, and 21st C cars back in the 60s. In fact 1971 is when Marek is mentioned as being born. It starts in the 21st C, as you will find if you add "about 650 years ago" to 1357. Did these people actually see the same movie we did?)
Rating:
Summary: Read the book, skip the movie!
Review: I agree with others that this is an extremely poor adaptation of a pretty good book. The best part of Crichton's novel was the explanation of time travel (or rather, parallel universe travel) -- which, while fanciful, was based on actual science. The movie completely alters and glosses over this part of the story. Then it further abandons the second most interesting part of the book (expositions on life in medieval France); also minimizes the third most interesting part (the character of Doniger, who must have been based on Bill Gates) and reduces the whole story to a corny action movie. The characters are poorly cast. Key plotlines are dropped. Overall, a major disappointment.
Rating:
Summary: Zero artistic effort here
Review: What a lazy, sophomoric effort by Richard Donner. I read Timeline a few years ago and I recall enjoying it. It wasn't great literature, but it was fast and fun and I looked forward to the film version. I regret to report that I honestly can't think of one single redeeming feature in this sorry excuse of a film. A script that butchers the book, which is amazing in itself. Crichton practically writes his novels for the screen these days. Uninspired directing. In the past Donner has given us some fine work like Ladyhawk and Lethal Weapon. It was painfully obvious that the person who made this turd just did not care if it was good or not. The cast was barely adequate, with only Gerard Butler making any kind of impression. The action scenes were cable TV quality, as were the sets and costumes. How bad was this movie? Congo (another Crichton novel that was mugged by the filmakers), by comparison, was a good movie. Zero artistic effort here. Sub-zero, if there is such a thing.
|
