OK - here we go again...
I had to post a comment about this adaptation of The Time Machine after reading the very harsh review by "Anonymous" from Sacramento.
This 1978 version was never intended as a remake to the 1960 version; in the 1960 film, MGM took a lot of liberties with the original book material, and in fact this version is a much more faithful adaptation of the book, and much closer to HG Wells' vision.
Whereas the 1960 version had a number of "key events" included that were not actually in the book at all, and also several key issues omitted, this version largely stays true to the book in all aspects.
While John Beck is not as confident or assured (or even as "arrogant") in his role as Rod Taylor, his more laid-back performance is far more reminiscent of the Time Traveller from the book than Taylor's. A couple of other famous faces (including the John A. Doucette, Priscilla Barnes and even Whit Bissell, who also starred in the 1960 version, are all pleasant enough in their supporting roles.
The effects are not brilliant, but then this was a cheap budget production made in the Star Wars era, so in comparison there was no way the effects were ever going to match up with productions from the likes of MGM or 20th Century Fox for that time! In short, while nothing special, and not as entertaining as the 1960 version, this 1978 adaptation is not absolutely disastrous either.
When it comes to accurately depicting HG Wells' original book, the 1960 "Time Machine" film is the weaker version, not this one
This 1978 version was never intended as a remake to the 1960 version; in the 1960 film, MGM took a lot of liberties with the original book material, and in fact this version is a much more faithful adaptation of the book, and much closer to HG Wells' vision.
Whereas the 1960 version had a number of "key events" included that were not actually in the book at all, and also several key issues omitted, this version largely stays true to the book in all aspects.
While John Beck is not as confident or assured (or even as "arrogant") in his role as Rod Taylor, his more laid-back performance is far more reminiscent of the Time Traveller from the book than Taylor's. A couple of other famous faces (including the John A. Doucette, Priscilla Barnes and even Whit Bissell, who also starred in the 1960 version, are all pleasant enough in their supporting roles.
The effects are not brilliant, but then this was a cheap budget production made in the Star Wars era, so in comparison there was no way the effects were ever going to match up with productions from the likes of MGM or 20th Century Fox for that time! In short, while nothing special, and not as entertaining as the 1960 version, this 1978 adaptation is not absolutely disastrous either.
When it comes to accurately depicting HG Wells' original book, the 1960 "Time Machine" film is the weaker version, not this one
- LisaLisa85
- 10 giu 2008