Rating: 
Summary: Love the movie-Love the book
Review: But for diffrent reasons. In the book Timeline, Crichton explored the scientific and historical aspects more fully and accurately. In the movie Timeline, Donner focused more on the action/adventure side, which is fine. Overall, the acting was good, special effects were great, and aside from some plot contrivances (I thought the pace of the film was rather quick)this movie is worth your time.
Rating: 
Summary: Painfully bad movie. Doesn't deserve any stars.
Review: I am at a loss concerning any positive reviews of this film. Timeline was one to the worst movies I had seen in a very long time. I will not touch on the job done by the actors because they had absolutely nothing to work with. The script was gut-wrenchingly bad. Character development was nonexistent. The movie became one large, and very choppy, chase scene punctuated by the death of some random pointless character is killed, basically equivalent to the red-shirted Star Trek cannon fodder. Oh and don't forget the lame attempts to develop love interests. Those need to be crammed somewhere in this appalling stew of filth and silliness. Historical accuracy was at an all time low. The feeble attempts of teenagers at the local renaissance festival are about at a par. The costuming for the movie was evidently acquired by raiding the wardrobe of Braveheart. Furthermore, Old French and Middle English are not even remotely similar to their modern equivalents. One can not be placed in Medieval Europe and expect to be understood. It would be the equivalent to Chinese or Swahili. And what was with that terrible battle scene at the end? Yes there were nice shiny explosions but to what purpose? The trebuchets were very impressive but lobbing flammable ceramic pottery at a stone building will not have much effect. Neither will shooting flaming arrows. All the fire and the explosions were simply for the benefit of the cameras. I mean honestly, "Night Arrows?" You mean they can't see our arrows at night if we don't take the time to set them ablaze? Wow, I bet that was quite the discovery. I am all for suspending ones disbelief when you go to a movie, but when you are constantly being clubbed on the head by the horridness of Timeline...shudder. The worst thing about this movie was the fact that it was so bad that it stunk. There are certain movies that despite the fact are so bad that they are hilarious. The dreadful writing and screen adaptation actually causes physical pain. I've just finished reading the book and I am pretty sure Crichton absolutely no say in the movie's creation. The book was good but I would avoid the movie at all costs or at least do not read the book first. One final question, was it supposed to be a spoof on the genre? Timeline was about the equivalent to BlackKnight. Horrid.
Rating: 
Summary: Ouch for Richard Donner and company!
Review: When a book by reknowned author Michael Crichton comes out, you can expect the book to hold a lot of great intellectual science prose and hypothetical scenarios about the science of today and where it could possibly go tomorrow. I've always loved his books and Timeline was one of those books that had a special place in my heart simply because I love midieval times. He made a great concept of time travel and put it with a great concept about the people of the ancient modern world! Wow! He's also written some of the most descriptive science fiction of our modern era; Jurassic Park, Congo, Coma and my favorite so far Prey! When I heard the studios were going to make a film of Timeline I was skeptical because we haven't seen a really good film of midieval times with the exception of Excalibur which will probably live on to be simply the greatest of all midieval times films. Then I heard about Martin Lawrence releasing "Black Knight." I saw this one on HBO just recently and I realized Hollywood is camping up this genre. It's unfortunate Richard Donner decided to do the same thing with Timeline. Instead of playing it straight and using the book as a source of inspiration, we're treated to a spoof of sorts that doesn't even come close to Crichton's vision. After watching Timeline, you feel like you've just watched a movie with cliff notes because Donner doesn't go into anything interesting with the story. It's all about hurrying the story and getting them all back in time to save dear old dad. Dad? What Dad? I was disturbed to see that Paul Walker and Billy Connelly's characters were transformed from professor and student to father and son. This was a major mistake because you simply can't believe that a son would even be allowed to go back in time in real life just because some dumb company would allow him to. Not likely. You simply can't believe for a moment that Billy Connelly and Paul Walker have any relation at all. There are many other changes they've made to the story. The jousting scene was completely taken out and I was really looking forward to this scene simply because it's funny and passionate and because you really understand after that scene why Merrick has a deep love for the period. All of that is missing here. Unfortunately, this film only had a $30 million dollar budget and that's a pretty small budget for such a big idea like Timeline. I think if they had waited...say...ten more years I think people would've been ready to see this fully realized. Unfortunately, Hollywood can't wait that long and they would much rather see a movie like this get made, fail miserably at box office (which it has) and see the thing go straight to video since they know they can make more money on video anyway. So, with that in mind, save your money for video. This movie is simply not a theatre house quality film. The entire time I was thinking we were seeing a TNT original movie instead of a blockbuster motion picture. Save your money and save this one for the small screen!
Rating:
Summary: Great fun!
Review: Timeline is not a great movie, far from it. But it IS great fun! The movie and the novel that preceded it are a guilty pleasure
of mine. Purists of Crichton's historical adventure will hate the fact that much of the detail has been changed for the movie. Forget that. Both can be enjoyed for the simple joy of the adventure they bring. Crichton's novels, with the exception of Jurassic Park, are often difficult to convey to the big screen. Like Stephen King, his screen versions have been more failure than success.
But you don't read Crichton for his fine writing or his execution; you read it for the awe-inspiring magnitude of his storylines. Thus, Director Richard Donner was confronted with the mindblowing need to deliver timetravel (where he uses a lot of cheesy effects) and a Middle Ages adventure/romance, with all the logical inconsistencies built into the plot. Donner scored his best film with the 80's classic "The Goonies", and his forte has been for ensemble adventure (even in prior costume dramas, witness the excellent "Ladyhawke"). He is better known for his big screen action films (the Lethal Weapon and the Superman series, but again, these are popular for the adventure and action, and not necessarily for the quality or humor in the films.). Here he gets smart and spends most of his budget on the battle scenes, and it is money well spent. The struggle for France in the 14th century is ably played in the battle for La Roque, and both Michael Sheen and Lambert Wilson, as Oliver and Arnault, the battle leaders, are superb). His focus on the weapons, the trebuchet, with its catapults of flame, the night arrows and Greek fire capture the heart of how terrible the tools of battle could be in these times.
The $$$ for those who would play his timetravelers were a little more meager, and though he did cast current screen eye-candy Paul Walker (Fast and the Furious) and Gerard Butler (the second Lara Croft flick), he made capable choices, including the wonderful character actor, Billy Connolly. Everyone in the cast does a plausible job, but the role of Andre Marek (Butler's character) in the book is the key role -- truly he was a Renaissance man trapped in the future, allowed to escape to the past. Had Donner cast someone larger than life (Hugh Jackman, Liam Neeson??) in the role, he probably could have anchored the film on a higher plane than that he achieved. However, if you go, or if you wait for the video, you'll love the yarn that is spun, and it may lead you to read the Crichton book, as well. Thumbs up!
Rating: 
Summary: not worth my time
Review: A film by Richard Donner Timeline is based on a novel by Michael Crichton. The book is a fast paced story about time travel and the effect people may have on a previous era. The book was a lot of fun to read and while it may not have been plausible, it didn't matter because of how well Crichton told the story. The movie, unfortunately, did not succeed in this way. We begin the movie in the present day. A man appears in the desert, but he is dressed in medieval garb. He dies, but a man from his company appears at the hospital to claim his body to take any and all records regarding this man. Obviously something is up. We shift over to the site of an archaeological dig. Chris (Paul Walker) is working with his father, the Professor (Billy Connely). The Professor wonders why Chris is still hanging around since Chris has shown a minimal interest in history. Despite that question, Chris and his father have a good relationship. The Professor suggests that it is because of Kate (Frances O'Conner). Kate is one of the Professor's assistants and Chris has feelings for her. The feelings are not returned. The Professor leaves the site to meet with the company funding the dig (the same company that picked up the dead man from earlier). He is gone for a couple of days, but as the dig continues, there is something strange: an authentic message from 1357, signed by the Professor, and asking for help. The ink is carbon-dated, the signature matches, but it is 600 years old. It makes no sense. The Professor is supposed to be with his financers, but the science authenticates the message. Chris, Kate, and some other members of the dig head to New Mexico to find out the truth from the company. It is revealed that the company accidently discovered time travel (to one specific time and place, France 1357) and that the Professor went back. The problem: he didn't make it back and now they need someone to go, find the Professor, and bring him back. That would be that same group of archaeologists. The company has people with military skill, but nobody who knows the language and the culture. The archaeologists know the language and culture. They are sent back to find the Professor. While they are back in 1357 France they are both trying to find the professor and also to not change history by their actions. The book was such an interesting concept and it played out so well in the novel. The movie tried to duplicate the book and was fairly faithful (from what I remember). It just didn't work. What came off as fun and exciting in Crichton's novel just didn't transfer very well to the screen. Timeline felt a little cheesy and dumb and not nearly as much fun as it promised to be. While it is supposed to be a mindless, fun movie, it just isn't very good and is a bit of a let down. Timeline isn't worth your time (nor mine).
Rating:
Summary: Worth watching, but not nearly as good as braveheart
Review: Timeline is sure to please if you are just looking to see paul walker, who is not Mel Gibson, or a lot of action. But to compare Braveheart, a true story, to this, a movie about kids traveling to the past to save a professor, is at best ludicrus. Good movie, worth watching, possibly even buying, but try not to make comparisons, otherwise you will leave dissapointed.
Rating:
Summary: I expected worst, but could have been a better adaptation
Review: If Crichton is known for anything it is the science he puts into his books. However, all of the interesting science was taken out of the movie adaptation. This movie portrays nearly everybody as either simple farmers or brute warriors. The science behind the time travel was turned into some type of unexplainable worm hole anomaly. The idea of transcription errors could have been explored and explained more. Of course, there were changes from the book. Most of which I did not like. First they sent back several more people and changed the relationship beteen two of the main characters (made them father and son instead of professor and student). I wasn't a big fan of that one, especially the former change. They cut out some of the scenes I was really looking forward to (like the jousting match and the mill scene among others). Plus, they took a lot of the history out of the movie, such as the fact that nobody then spoke English and French like we do now. And, I'm sorry... but if all that took place in six hours instead of 37 hours then I'm REALLY impressed!!! I was also disappointed that the search for the secret intrance was reduced to five minutes of looking around the monistary. There were a few changes I liked. Donovan's #1 rule was that nothing modern went back. Other than the markers, this stayed more true in the film version than in the book form when they took back communication devices and other devices that allowed them to light fires. So, Crichton fans, beware. There is a slightly different story here. But the overall story is there, even if it is told with nearly every time travel cliche imaginable. Recommended? Yeah, if you have a spare two hours of nothing to do. It was, in the end, entertaining and probably would have been more entertaining if I hadn't read the book and I wasn't sitting there nick-picking about everything. Also, the battle scene was pretty incredible.
Rating: 
Summary: Timeline Movie A Worthy Effort
Review: I love Michael Crichton novels, and this movie sure captured the essence of Crichton's Timeline. The ACTORS DID A FANTASTIC JOB! And the fighting sequences were SO well done. Congratulations, Mr. Donner; you should be brimming with pride at a quality product.
Rating:
Summary: Timeline is not a 5 star movie but worth checking out!
Review: Timeline starts out in France sometime in the future. A group of Yale students are studying a medieval site, when their professor, turns up missing. If that was not enough, the students are then taken back to the U. S. by a company called ITC. The company then explaines to the students a machine that they built has taken their professor and trapped him in the 14th century France. The only way for them to rescue him is to have the students, Chris Hughes (Paul Walker) and Kate Erickson (Frances O'Connor), along with Andre Marek (Gerard Butler), a archeological site manager, travel back in time to France 1357, in the middle of a war and do their best to save their professor. I am not in to movies about the past, however this one was an entertaining one that had an original concept when compared to other movies of this topic. Not a 5 star movie but one worth checking out.
Rating:
Summary: Travel Back In Time With Timeline
Review: I heard some reviews (C-grade level) of this movie prior to seeing it in the theater this past weekend, but I was glad to see that entertainment in the eyes of a film critic and a movie goer can be very different. The story Michael Critchton tells is fantastic, Richard Donner is great with action flicks, it seems to be a good combination, and I think it works. I am a Michael Crichton fan, and loved the book, admitted our imagination is more powerful than actors on the screen, but I really enjoyed seeing the images on screen. I brought my family and they enjoyed it. It ended up being an interesting conversation for all of us as we left the theater. When the DVD comes out I will probably buy it.
| 
