Mark L. (Dragonlew) from MEMPHIS, TN Reviewed on 4/17/2016...
This was an "OK" movie. Great effects. But it will never take the place as the original version. The original version is a much better movie than this one. The original is just a classic and newer versions cannot meet up with the standards of the originals. But do watch this one, and see what you think after you see the original one that was made back in 1960 with Rod Taylor.
3 of 3 member(s) found this review helpful.
Sharon H. from LANCASTER, PA Reviewed on 2/19/2014...
I loved this movie! For me, it was much better than the original one that was done a long time ago. I loved the differences between the old movie and the new. It was the same genre with something different to keep you watching!
3 of 3 member(s) found this review helpful.
John B. (FilmFanwithCat) from MENLO PARK, CA Reviewed on 1/19/2013...
Samantha Mumba stands out as The Romantic , Heart-throb of this movie.
You don't know anything about Her , do You?
Look over at the Info on Her "My Space" page.
i wish some Bright director would re-discover Her.
She does some great movements and facial expressions to compliment
her acting , here.(Her brother,in real-life,plays Her som, in this movie.)
Sure, it's a variant "Twist" from H.G. Wells Classic,
but it does well to UpDate The Legacy for the 2000's.
Jeremy Irons ~~~i Love this Man~~~ is an especially Graceful
,Polite, charming, and brilliant Leader of this Future, in 802,000AD.
Who will create "The Time Machine" for the 2010s?
Saturday January 19th 2013 @ 1:31am~~~
2 of 2 member(s) found this review helpful.
Ronald S. (Tony) Reviewed on 3/8/2011...
It was a good movie, but not as good as the original. This pretty much sums up all of the remakes that are being made. With all the material that is available there just is no need to remake these original classics. The movie industry needs to get busy and quit being so lazy. Maybe someone needs to find another occupation, because this one is not working out for them.
3 of 5 member(s) found this review helpful.
Matthew W. (Metryq) from BOYLSTON, MA Reviewed on 7/24/2010...
Beautiful time machine prop, but the movie falls down on just about everything else. The plot invokes multiple paradoxes and otherwise meanders around aimlessly. The movie has no subtlety. For example, the line "He's a patent clerk, not a book-keeper" should have ended right there -- actually mentioning Einstein's name is an insult to the audience. George Pal's 1960 version deviated from the novel, yet maintained the thread of exploration and speculation about how the world of 802,701 came to be. In this movie everything is explained up front, mostly by a holographic computer that somehow remained functional for close to a million years.
The only visual effect that bothered me was the formation of the canyon -- it looked like videogame animation instead of an eroding landscape. Although this movie makes several nods to the 1960 version, such as the mannikins in the store window.
I gave the movie three stars because it is watchable, but don't expect any intellectual stimulation.
2 of 3 member(s) found this review helpful.
Deborah D. (pmdeborah) from YORK, PA Reviewed on 7/24/2010...
This movie sucked. I couldn't believe how bad it was. I like Guy Pearce movies and he was okay in this one. The beginning is okay and the plot is a good one but when he gets to some other times is when the movie goes way down hill fast.
1 of 2 member(s) found this review helpful.
Peter A. from SUNNYVALE, CA Reviewed on 4/14/2010...
The special effects in this version are way beyond previous incarnations. The basic story is much the same with a few twists. Jeremy London is a great inclusion for his acting talents. Well worth the view as it's ENTERTAINING!
3 of 3 member(s) found this review helpful.
Karen D. (Tazabeau) from CLAREMONT, NH Reviewed on 1/3/2010...
This story has always been a favourite of mine. Loved the way they have brought it up to date and yet used some of the same tricks from the original. Interesting and loads of fun, with some really ugly bad guys in the future. Excellant remake!
4 of 4 member(s) found this review helpful.
Look Ma, No Hands!
tvtv3 | Sorento, IL United States | 03/10/2002
(4 out of 5 stars)
"I've been reading some fairly negative reviews of this movie in newspapers and magazines throughout the country. Very seldom do those critics get it right. THE TIME MACHINE by H.G. Wells really doesn't make that great of a movie if one stays true to the text. After all, H.G. Wells' book was more a commentary on society than a science fiction novel. With that said, THE TIME MACHINE movie directed by Simon Wells is a rocking adventure, full of excitement.The movie stars Guy Pierce (L.A. CONFIDENTIAL, MEMENTO) as Alexander Hartdegen. Hartdegen is a professor at Columbia University and among several eccentricies contains a correspondence with German clerk, Albert Einstein. Hartdegen has an interest in all things mechanical and a strange fascination with time. However, it takes an overwhelming tragedy to focus Hartdegen's energies into building a time machine. He travels into the past and future, but a knock on the head causes him to travel 800,000 years farther into the future than he planned. There he discovers two races of men: the peaceful Eloi, and the cannabilistic Morlocks. Alex is faced with a choice and his decision will affect all of time.Simon Wells has done a good job of putting together an action packed science fiction adventure. It is true that the movie does not much resemble his great-grandfather's novel. However, Simon Wells did not write the script. He just had an opportunity to work on something and have a family connection.Anyway, the movie is fairly fast paced and though it does not try to explain time travel (such as the great BACK TO THE FUTURE) and has a few plot holes, the movie is still enjoyable. It's a nice piece of mind candy."
Good........strange at times, but good.
Erik Morton | Carmel, CA United States | 03/19/2002
(4 out of 5 stars)
"Rather than the trailers and the movie poster suggests, this is a mix of adventure, fantasy, and drama, instead of just pure action. It doesn't have a whole lot to do with the H.G. Wells book (which is also excellent), except for the main plot line, about a man who invents a Time Machine and travels 800,000 years (or somewhere around there) into the future and discovers a race of peaceful beings called the Eloi, who are terrorized by the brutal, cannabalistic mutant-like race the Morlocks. But it wasn't the director's (Simon Wells, the great-grandson of H.G. Wells himself) intention to go directly by the book. And this new version adds some very fresh (and very pleasing) plot twists; for instance, it actually gives the scientist a practical, and very moving, reason to build the Time Machine in the first place. The movie also gives us some very well-hidden morals/warnings of human arrogance and our ever-growing thirst for knowledge and power, and that it may infact destroy us in the end; and also, that love and life comes first, not science, a lesson Guy Pierce learns the hard way in the end. Guy Pierce does an excellent job, by the way, as the scientist. And so does Orlando Jones as the looney computer library database who utters the hillarious words " 'The Time Machine' was written by H.G. Wells, turned into a motion picture in 1960, and later became a musical. Would you like to hear a selection of the soundtrack?", and then starts singing "There's A Place Called Tomorrow". (That's the joke, by the way; it was never even thought of being made into a musical!) Jeremy Irons' role as the Morlock leader feels somewhat waisted, however, even though he's trying his sinister best. The special-effects and backgrounds are a plus, too. And an A++++ for Klaus Badelt for providing the excellent music; I must get the soundtrack. I might see it again, actually, maybe with my dad who hasn't seen it yet. The only reason I didn't give it 5 stars was, as it said in the title: it can get really strange at times, especially near the end; all my friends say that Jeremy Irons is simply the leader of the Morlocks and let Guy Pierce go just because he was being nice (!), but I just know that there's a bigger, more complex relationship between the two. Maybe my dad will understand when he sees it. I can't believe all the critics bombed this (the "GO" gave it 1-1/2 stars, those morons). "The Time Machine" is a must see for any science-fiction fan. You might want to go rent the original 1960 movie, too.....just for fun."
Glitzier Does Not Mean Better
Martin Asiner | jersey city, nj United States | 08/10/2002
(3 out of 5 stars)
"It may be unfair, but a remake of a hit movie must always be compared to the original. The 1960 original of THE TIME MACHINE was a deserved hit. The 2002 version may be a treat for the eyes, but unfortunately, not for the brain. Part of the problem is that Simon Wells, the great-grandson of H. G. Wells, directed the movie as if he were more entranced with dazzling special effects (and dazzling they are) than with bringing out a believable, fully fleshed series of characters. In 1960, director George Pal wisely kept the focus squarely on the hero's adventures and why he helped the human Eloi. In 2002, Simon Wells clearly loved the image of leaping, loping half-humans that he had seen in previous sci-fi movies. The supporting cast in the age of the time traveler (David Pearce) did not do very much to point out his character. His girlfiend Emma (Sienna Guillory) was in the film only to motivate him to build a time machine to alter the past to avoid her death. One would think that such a clumsy device would not be sufficient by itself to galvanize the time traveller. In the original, Rod Taylor's scientific curiosity with time was quite sufficient a motivation.
The real hero of the movie is the special effects co-ordinator. The images of one day melding into the next are memorable. Further, the appearance of the Morlocks as a cross between man and fish stuns the senses. Jeremy Irons disappoints as the Morlocks leader. As Irons pontificates on the split between Eloi and Morlocks, the viewer can see under the pasty-white makeup and hear the Irons from DIE HARD III lecturing Bruce Willis on similar such claptrap. Further, the ending, which I shall not divulge here, is an incomprehensible mess of weird logic unconnected to resulting effect. What emerges by the end of the film is the growing realization that Simon Wells ought to have paid less attention to being different from his forebear and more attention to a director who knew how to weave a magical spell that would not get lost in the techo wizardry that passes for the cutting edge in computer special effects."
Fun but forgettable
Matthew Horner | USA | 07/28/2002
(3 out of 5 stars)
""The Time Machine" is loosely based on H.G. Wells' sci-fi masterpiece, written in 1897. The book was also made into a movie forty years ago [available on DVD at Amazon.com]. Back then, the major studios had decided to cash in on the craze created by independent, low-budget sci-fi and horror films. MGM, for example, produced "The Time Machine" as well as "Forbidden Planet". These pictures - sleeker and glossier than anything the independents could make - used what were, at the time, state-of-the-art special effects. Today's version of the Wells classic utilizes the same tools. While the results are at times spectacular, it lacks a key ingredient - a dash of intelligence - that made the earlier version more memorable.The time is the very end of the 19th Century. The place is New York. Alexander Hartegen [Guy Pearce] is a brilliant, absent-minded professor of science who is madly in love. When his fiancée dies tragically, he feels somehow responsible. Sequestering himself in his laboratory for four years, he builds a time machine. His plan is to go back, change the past and prevent his lover's death. When this fails, he realizes that any answer lies in the future. He travels to the New York of the mid-21st Century where he finds the planet in the midst of a catastrophe. The moon is breaking apart, and chunks of it are plummeting to Earth. In this melee he is knocked unconscious and awakens 800,000 years in the future. There he finds that the moon's destruction has caused mankind to split into two different species - one beautiful, innocent and benign, the other hideous and very dangerous. As a fast-paced, mindless adventure, "The Time Machine" frequently succeeds. To truly enjoy it, you simply have to leave your sense of logic behind. The time travel sequences are beautifully rendered, although the fact that the machine always manages to wind up in the same spot is beyond ludicrous. The creatures who prey upon the pretty people of the future are deliciously gross and mean, but the way they move is not only obviously computer-generated but also in defiance of all know laws of gravity and of physics. Some of the people still speak English, which has not changed one bit in all those years. Think about how it's changed in just the last few hundred years. Archeological remnants of the past, which have apparently sat outside for 8,000 centuries, seem perfectly preserved. And, as to what would REALLY happen to the planet if the moon fell apart, let's not even go there. Maybe it's just me, but sometimes it seems as though the smarter computers get, the dumber action/adventure and sci-fi movies become. It's as though the filmmakers are so infatuated with the gadgets and electronic wizardry that they forget all about the script. Much like the recent remake of "Planet of the Apes", "The Time Machine" winds up being fun but entirely forgettable."
Throwback to Old-Fashioned Adventures
Stephen Kaczmarek | Columbus, Ohio United States | 06/13/2003
(4 out of 5 stars)
"Though the George Pal version of "The Time Machine" is still the better interpretation of Wells' novel, this special-effects-heavy update merits a view for its sheer determination to be fun. Guy Pearce takes over the reins from Rod Taylor, and like his predecessor, maintains a stalwart sense of decency as a Victorian inventor out of time. The twist here is that the time traveler seeks not the utopian future presumed in the novel--and therefore unfortunately avoids many of the philosophical discussions about the nature of humankind in the former film--but to overturn a personal tragedy. The result is a Saturday-matinee-style adventure that is both colorful and high-spirited, to the degree that much of the cynicism of Wells' original concept goes unnoticed. (Many viewers will probably overlook the irony that it is the "civilized" time traveler who introduces genocide to the post-apocalyptic future). Add some truly beautiful Eloi, a brief but effective performance by Jeremy Irons, and a lush score (despite sounding a bit too much like Jerry Goldsmith's from "The Edge"), and the combination is calculated to satisfy. Watch it with the family."