Rating: 
Summary: I enjoyed it, and that's good enough for me.
Review: Having never read the novel by H.G. Wells myself, I guess you can say that I went to watch The Time Machine without much of an expectation, well, other than being entertained visually while hoping for a cohesive story; and one out of two isn't so bad. The movie follows the exploits of Alexander Hartdegen, a professor of mathematics and engineering, and an avid inventor, he devoted much of his time to the theory of time travel after a personal tragedy. His obsession results in the creation of the time machine, which Alexander uses to find out the answer to the one question that haunts him, why can't he change the past?I really like Guy Pearce's performance in the film, he is an exciting actor to watch, especially after his brilliant portrayal of Leonard Shelby in Memento. He was able to bring out the desparation in Alexander, and the hope his character carries as he attempts to rewrite history. The only other person worth noting is Jeremy Irons, even though he was only in the movie for a few minutes, he did a good job as the antagonist. Not exactly a villain, he plays the ruling class of the Morlocks, one of the two races left on earth 800,000 years in the future. There are a lot of things that get glossed over in The Time Machine, but the plot holes are offset by the beautiful cinematography in the movie. Lots of good looking visual effects, some fantastic action sequences, in addition to a decent score, combined to make an enjoyable experience . The Time Machine is not a masterpiece, and it probably won't win any awards, but it did exactly what it set out to do, which is to entertain its audiences, and that is good enough for me.
Rating:
Summary: Not much TIME spent on this production...
Review: This movie version of the H.G. Wells classic has very few similarities to the original 1960 version. You learn very little about Guy Pearce's time-travelling lead
character, other than he's an Engineering professor that spends
most of his time in his lab. The editing doesn't LOOK choppy but you leave the movie feeling like there could have been a lot more illustrated about the storyline and characters. There is very little pre-experimentation with the time machine. You may sit there watching the movie thinking "Why didn't he..." during his trials and failures. For a brilliant mind, the professor doesn't seem to think very much. The movie also avoids the possibility of meeting yourself like the Back To The Future movies did. For what they're given, Guy and Samantha Mumba do a great job with their roles, as well as Orlando Jones [Mad TV/7-Up guy] who plays a photonic (holographic) librarian. The majority of the production funds look like they went to the special effects, obviously. The costuming, both villager and creature, left quite a bit to be desired. I can recommend this for a matinee viewing but not for the full pricer. Not Academy Award material but not Razzy Award, either.
Rating: 
Summary: Not a remake but...
Review: This is not a remake or an update of the orginal Wells novel... To say that this is truly the Time Machine would be like saying the Tim Burton adaptation of Planet of the Apes, is better than the orginal... It is not. The Morlocks were never intended to be in the light... Never and the Eloi... were never intended to know English... let alone be able to degfend themselves or be intelligent. One cannot destroy a classic .... but Simon Wells and John Logan did and will.
Rating: 
Summary: MORE ACTION LESS DRAMA
Review: Scientist and inventor Alexander Hartdegen is determined to prove that time travel is possible. His determination is turned to desperation by a personal tragedy that now drives him to want to change the past. Testing his theories with a time machine of his own invention, Hartdegen is hurtled 800,000 years into the future, where he discovers that mankind has divided into the hunter...and the hunted. Based on the classic science-fiction novel by H.G. Wells, "The Time Machine" stars Guy Pearce ("Memento," "L.A. Confidential") in the role of Alexander Hartdegen. Making her feature film debut, Dublin-born singer/songwriter Samantha Mumba stars opposite Pearce as Mara, the woman who befriends Hartdegen in the distant future. The international cast also includes Orlando Jones ("Evolution"), Mark Addy ("The Full Monty"), Phyllida Law ("Saving Grace"), Sienna Guillory ("Kiss Kiss Bang Bang") and Academy Award® winner Jeremy Irons ("Reversal of Fortune," "Die Hard: With a Vengeance").
Rating:
Summary: OK, but is it really Welles?
Review: This is watchable action/adventure, with competent acting and effects. It just never rises past the ordinary, though. Also, though I haven't read Welles' original in some time, I have doubts about its faithfulness to the original. The plot is simple enough. Brilliant but obsessed scientist suffers a terrible loss, then creates the time machine to go back and recover what was lost. When that doesn't work, he skips forward through time, and an accident lands him in the distant futre. Mankind has split into two subspecies, the peaceful, pastoral Eloi and the vicious (and a little more technologically oriented) Morlocks. Our hero saves the world and lives happily every after. [Vague, I know, but I prefer to avoid spoilers.] The steam-punk look of the time machine is well done. The look of the Eloi village is distinctive, but very reminiscent of the Myst games. There was interesting continuity of the traveler's steps into the future, including the one character that reappears in different eons. A few things left me confused, though. The Morlocks use blowguns with some vile mix in the darts. As near as I can tell, though, the only effect of a dart is to leave a black stain - I never did see toxic effects in the people hit by them. Also, a relatively small nuclear blast was enough to break up the moon. Huh? You don't need to be a physicist here. Some of those lunar craters came from meteor impacts that released the energy of nuclear blasts, big ones, and the moon held up just fine. Breaking up the moon would mean overcoming the gravitational attraction that holds all the pieces together. No human bomb is anywhere near that energy range. It's a decent enough way to kill an evening. Just be sure you want it dead.
Rating:
Summary: Great movie!
Review: Well put together. 5 star movie. Guy Pearce was a real guy as Alexander. So very good. VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY good. Try beating this movie; it's hard.
Rating:
Summary: better than harry potter and the chamber of secrets
Review: yup this movie is better than harry potter and the chambers of secrets. since that movie didn't have great acting the quiddich game was not appealing.
Rating:
Summary: unbelivable
Review: this movie was unbelivable. since this movie never gets boring.
Rating:
Summary: Still waiting for a worthy remake of "The Time Machine"...
Review: First there was H.G. Wells' classic novel. Then there was the classic film of 1960 by George Pal. Since the 2002 version of "The Time Machine" is based on these two works (much more on Pal then on Herbert George), some comparision between them is unavoidable.
The first 20 minutes of the new "Time Machine" are its best. Ironically, this is the only portion of the film which isn't based on either Pal or H.G. Wells... Instead, it gives us a completely new and original background story for the time traveller: In this film, it is a personal tragedy which compells the hero to build a time machine and try to change the past.
After the time traveller (named "Alexander" in this film) fails to manipulate his personal past, he embarks on a journey into the future to search for the reason he failed. Once he touches that lever which sends the machine to the future, the film follows the same plot as the 1960 version of "The Time Machine". This point, about 25 minutes into the film, marks the end of "The Time Machine 2002 - a decent sci-fi film" and the beginning of "The Time Machine 2002 - the lame remake".
Why lame? Because the "remake" portion of the film is far worse then original 1960 version in almost every aspect. There are a few exceptions which are noted below:
1. The time machine itself. As much as the original 1960 machine was neat, it really can't compare with the incredible design work Dreamworks did for the 2002 version: The new time machine is an absolute beauty.
2. Orlando Jones as the Digital Librarian in the future, Vox. He provides both a comic relief and a couple of touching scenes near the end of the film.
3. The time travel sequences. The amazing computer graphics compensate here for the lack of personal touch (Although the original 1960 version does retain its own charm).
These good points take, perhaps, 10 minutes of the film. The love story and tragedy in the beginning takes another 20 minutes... 30 decent minutes out of a 96-minute movie. And the ending of the film sucks too (I won't give it away, but it DOES suck big time).
All-in-all, this film is a disappointment. It certainly is an entertaining way to spend 96 minutes, but that's all it is. Wells fans are still waiting for a decent modern version of Herbert George's time travel tale.
Rating: 
Summary: was this a 'Made for TV' movie?
Review: I missed this film when it was in the theaters, and finally added it to my Netflix queue this past weekend, only to be disappointed. In the initial scenes during the late 1800's, the scenery and the time machine itself looked good, and I had no complaints. But then the "future" scenes and cheap visual effects started coming, culminating in a not-so-tribal group of future homosapiens where, apparently, makeup and hip hair fashion will still be of utmost importance. And for a tribe of regularly roughed-up, victims-of-underground-dwelling-cannibals, their outfits wouldn't be so clean-pressed. I think this film was mis-labeled from the low-budget Saturday afternoon movie on the WB that it is.
| 
