Rating: 
Summary: This movie is a time travel vehicle for me....
Review: I first saw this movie when it came out in theaters. I was living on an Air Force base in Japan. Movies were cheap on base, even for that time, just 25 cents, and they changed every 2 days, so I saw lots of movies in the 3 years I spent there. I remember this movie best of all that I recall seeing while I lived there. Aside from H.G. Wells' underlying messages, this movie, for me, was the finest entertainment I can remember until 2001, A Space Odyssey, which was a distant second. The upbeat, optimistic ending with so much unanswered begged for a sequel. I spent entire days of my life contemplating what the 3 books were, and I think I know. This is one of the best films of all time. Five stars plus.
Rating:
Summary: Creative Classic with an Excellent Ending
Review: George Pal was the man who brought us the science fiction classics "When Worlds Collide" and "The War of the Worlds". George did an equally good job with "The Time Machine".Herbert Wells wonders about the evolution of society and looks forward into the future at the great things man will accomplish. The drive to see that great future has driven Herbert to create a machine to get there. One aspect I enjoyed about this movie and "Time after Time" is that Herbert in each movie was interested in the progress of society and man. Their action with the time machine was the equivalent of turning to the last chapter of a novel. In this movie, Herbert finds that society has been destroyed by a nuclear war, which in 1960 seemed like a very real and imminent possibility. Mankind was driven underground by the need to escape the effects of the war, leading ultimately to the evolution of the peaceful Eloi and the predatory Morlocks. The Morlocks principal source of food seems to be the Eloi, while the Eloi eat fruits and vegetables, which inadvertently becomes a commentary on what happens to vegetarians. George Pal tries hard and generally succeeds in exploiting what happens when a society no longer has a need to drive itself to achieve a goal, whatever that goal may be. The Eloi have everything provided, so they see no need to strive to be any different. Things are the way they have always been, and life if good. If some disappear occasionally, well, we can still go play by the rocks and do whatever. Obviously some of this story is difficult to believe because we know that even "peaceful" animals such as rams and bulls sometimes fight to the [end] over females and territory, and it would seem like there would be some point of contention even in this "perfect" society. However, given that the movie has to present a viewpoint in a relatively small time frame, it succeeds well by the very exaggeration of the characteristics of such a society. The end of the movie is most satisfying, as Alan Young (playing George Well's best friend Philby), speculates on three books that George took with him to help re-build the civilization of the far future. While the movie suffers from many of the cliches and the now dated styling of the late 1950s, it creates a very believably little tale with award winning special effects. At the end of the movie you are left with the sense that mankind has the ability to triumph over the odds. I am admittedly partial to these classics, which did so much with so little, requiring much plot creativity. However, when the end credits roll, you walk out satisfied that you were treated to a real movie experience. While I should give this movie 4 stars for its weak points, it gets 5 stars for standing the tests of time and being better than the 2002 re-make.
Rating: 
Summary: When I speak of time, I'm speaking of the fourth dimension
Review: I recently watched the "new" version of "The Time Machine" and decided it was time to go back and check out the 1960 George Pal version. This is a good science fiction film, but I have never considered it a classic. The reason for this, ironically enough, is that screenwriter David Duncan sticks pretty close to the original novel by H.G. Wells. So the good news is that George (Rod Taylor) invites a time machine that not only looks like a time machine should but works. The bad news is that given this great device it is used to go 800,000 years into the future where Wells could represent the bitter division of the British caste system into the evolutionary divide between the Eloi and the Morlocks. This might make for some interesting debates during Edwardian England but for an action film it is not really that thrilling. At least Rod Taylor looks like he could actually knock down a Morlock or two, which is more than Guy Pearce can say. Ironically, in each film my favorite part remains the same: when the hero gets into the time machine and watches the years pass with increasing speed. The new version has the advantage of CGI, but there is some innate charm to the special effects in the George Pal version. Still, this is the first great time machine story and needs to be honored for that reason alone and Pal gets credit for making a fairly faithful version of the novel. Whatever its faults, "The Time Machine" is required viewing for students of science fiction.
Rating:
Summary: Watch this version before the remake
Review: I haven't seen the new remake of this H.G. Wells story yet. I read the book when I was a teenager, and this was one of the first DVDs I ever bought; I had never seen the movie before. Just because a movie has been remade with the latest special effects doesn't mean it will be better. This story depends less on special effects than it does on people.
Rating:
Summary: Slightly "altered state" from the novella
Review: I'm one of the few aged souls who first saw this in a theatre when it was first released. But, I've also seen it several times since on VHS. (I'm new to DVD so I can neither praise nor criticize the techno dis- or advantages of that new medium.) I've read the H. G. Wells novella several times and, like most people, I guess, have occasional fantasies of time travel. Years after I'd first seen the film, I had a minor criticism, that the novella had more "socialist" undertones. The Eloi and the Morlocks had parted special ways due to economic oppression, i.e., the latter being imprisoned in mines and factories so long that they became a troglyditic, brutal, predatory species while the former were weak, meek, ignorant, and the prey of the Morlocks. The film depoliticized that to a degree. In retrospect, that depoliticization (forgive the long word) may have been necessary for the movie market of the time. The anti-communist fervor still existed then. What's more, to make the story more meaningful to the young viewers, the producers and screen writers may have left out that which seemed more appropriate to Wells' time. And there WAS politics, appropriate to the time. For instance, the air raid alarm went off and the Eloi went into a trance to march to the dinner tables of the Morlocks. In other words, the original meaning of that alarm had been lost after thousands of centuries of distortion. The characters were adequate, though I still find it hard to see Rod Taylor as an Englishman. Other leading characters went on to roles such as the lead human character in "Mr. Ed," and Giles French, the genial butler in "Family Affair."
In any event, the special effects were superbly done, the story well executed. I could criticize the simplistic romance of Yvette Mimieux's character, but the rest of the story overshadowed that. And, as others have pointed out, there was a challenge to "realism," what one would expect after 8000 centuries. But the "li cense of the medium," and the points of the story make up for those weaknesses. Neither Wells nor the producers intended historical realism. And one cannot help but be amused by the futurist speculation, e.g., a nuclear war beginning in 1966. Again, that was a overwhelming fear in the year the film was made and seemed all too possible. Because I've so loved this film for the last 42 (!) years, I asked my wife for the soundtrack and for the "remake" (if that's what it is) from Amazon.com for Christmas. When I get them, perhaps I'll add a couple more reviews on these pages. For now, I think this film is a classic, and I still recommend the novella.
Rating:
Summary: One of the finest Sci-Fi movies ever
Review: If you asked me what my two favorite science-fiction movies were, I'd have to say Forbidden Planet and The Time Machine. As anyone who has read the book can tell you, it's not the kind of story that really lends itself to a movie. Why? Well... The book was about the seperation of the social classes. About the futility of human achievement, and ultimately, about how human kindness is the one thing that survives when all else is lost. In that story, one human being was just a cog in the wheel of time, and had little power to change anything. But the movie...ah the movie was about something else entirely. Look past the excellent special effects and the (in my book anyway) great acting and flow of plot. What do you have? A story about the suffering of humanity. The striving for knowledge and improvement. And the idea that if people allow themselves to stagnate, to become complacent, and to forget the mistakes of the past, they may allow their world to turn into a nightmare rather than the Utopia they long for. In this movie, one human being CAN make a difference. The time traveler helps the people of the future to rediscover their courage, their compassion, their humanity. As long as one person still clings to the ideals of humanity, there is always hope. This is a great movie, and the dvd certainly does it justice. It features one of the nicest film transfers I have ever seen. The picture quality is absolutely perfect, and the widescreen is really appreciated. If you are a sci-fi fan, or a movie buff, you NEED to own this movie. It IS different from the book. But it has merits of it's own. And they are not to be overlooked.
Rating:
Summary: I like this version better than the new version
Review: I first saw this movie when I was a teenager and it stayed in a corner of my mind. I never forgot the story. The plot is good if you overlook some "obvious impossibilities" like how can a language - in this case English - survive and in fact is being spoken after 700,000 years ??? The spoken English today is quite different from the same languase that was spoken just a century ago... Very inventive the way it shows the passage of time by the change in the cloths style displayed in a shop window. Overall, I liked this movie and I recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: Science fiction with a heart
Review: The sci-fi and special effex aspects of this film has been discussed, but what's often overlooked is the film's underlying message about friendship. While Rod Taylor's off into his time travel sprees, Alan Young (unfortunately best remembered as "Wilbur" from the ..."Mr. Ed") sees to it that nobody buys Taylor's house. Most touching is wheh Taylor goes to 1966 London in the midst of a nuclear holocaust, he stops by a park which Alan Young's son has dedicated to his father's friendship to Taylor. Pretty moving stuff, especially the poignant scene where Taylor goes nearly 20 years into the future in 1917 and learns that Young's son had told him the story of his friendship with Taylor. Science fiction with a heart. The epilogue, filmed 30 years after the original film with Taylor and Young's characters reuniting is not that necessary, which is why this gets a 4 instead of a 5 from me.
Rating:
Summary: This movie makes you wonder.
Review: If I only had a machine like that...... This movie get your attention and your curiosity. What would you do in the actor's shoes?. I only wish I had a machine like that....... Overall: EXCELLENT. By the way, the new version on this movie is a joke. This is the one to watch.
Rating: 
Summary: Warners has done it again!!! Unfortunately!!!
Review: I can understand if a viewer has only seen a VHS release of this film, worse still a rental copy, that this DVD would probably exceed expectations. Some of us though have seen the Laserdisc as well so our expectations of the DVD were a little higher. Frankly, I think Warner has given "The Time Machine" a better than average transfer for Warner. I also don't think that is saying much either. The aspect ratio is off, details at Amazon.com give it 1:66:1, but Widescreen review is giving it as 1:78:1, which is closer to what you see on the screen. So little is made of the widescreen field however, that a fullscreen editon would probably enhance details in the center, especially Yvette Mimieux and Rod Taylor who give wonderful performances in this film. This is probably why I enjoyed the film on television so much over the years. I found the sound passable but the dialogue too soft at times. The picture succumbed to grain a little to often, but it's certainly better than it has looked in years. The lack of any running commentary is probably what is really missing on this otherwise decent DVD edition. It would have been better still if they had issued the Pan and Scan edition on the second layer or flip side with this Widescreen editon. Instead, we get as a supplemental a nearly decade old 45 minute TV program, much of its footage is far older, fuzzy and faded, hosted by Rod Taylor. He had changed so much that I didn't recognise him at first. I understand this is yet another MGM title which Warners is issuing on DVD after getting the rights from Turner. I think MGM makes better DVD's for the same or even less money than Warner from what I have seen so far. I hope to be pleasantly surprised otherwise in the future, but we will see. I give the movie an A, but the DVD gets B+ for Video, B- for Audio, C for extras, overall grade of B-, best wishes CAL
| 
