The Time Machine

The four of us are in the 40 - 50 age range, and we are fairly tough what we like and do not like in films. It was Friday night and we wanted entertainment. We read the comments below - mostly, but not all negative - and decided to take a gamble. Arriving at the cinema, we were prepared for a bad movie but hoping for 'a good relaxing time'. Well, we *did* like this film! Not a top box office smash or even an 8 out of 10, but entertaining nevertheless. The MUSIC was superb. ACTING was fine. HISTORIC life portrayed in old Cambridge Massachusetts was realistic - even the snow and cold weather was real. The ROMANCE was acceptable. The STORY, while not closely following H G Well, was good enough. The SPECIAL EFFECTS were very good indeed. It is worth a gamble, to see this film. But go with a light heart and an acceptable frame of mind, and keep your expectations below that of a 10 out of 10 film.

When Victorian scientist Alexander Hartdegen sees his fiancé murdered during a petty robbery, he throws himself into his work while all even his closest friends know is that he is doing nonsense research and physics. Four years later though and Alexander has created his machine – a time machine – that he plans to use to return to the fateful night and save his true love. Somehow he cannot do it though and, in despair, he drives himself forward into the future to find progress beyond his wildest dreams. This progress though, comes with costs and risks – both of which Alexander is very aware of as he moves into a world where mankind has changed beyond all recognition.

This film was wildly derided when it came out in the cinemas and I never bothered to go and see it, preferring to let time pass and pick it up for free on television in a few years. That time came recently and I watched a version of HG Wells' Time Machine that is loosely based on the source material. It starts with potential but all too quickly it becomes obvious and surprisingly heartless – almost making a conscious decision that the effects will be what people come for and that doing a solid job on those will be enough. Sadly that is not the case but, were it, the effects are already superseded and do not look as impressive as they once may have done. With the humanity and the emotion built into the story, the delivery is quite stiff and dull and I found myself surprised by how little interest I had it the story even when I was far into it. Not totally sure where the problems lie with this but script is certainly one of them (some of the dialogue and exposition is terribly clunky) while the overall production did appear effects driven.

It is a shame because Guy Pearce frequently offers more from his performance and his potential but the film never really takes him up on it and it leaves him isolated, trying to be a character in a film that would seem to just prefer an action hero. Mumba looks good (if you ignore that at times her face is chimp-like, and no it is not racist to say so) but she cannot act for toffee – she didn't even run and scream all that convincingly. God knows what about the film made Irons decide to do his poor character but he is not alone as other famous faces such as Bloom and Addey show up.

The Time Machine is not the awful film that some say but it is just very heartless and dull. Some of the effects are good and the plot did have potential but the script and design never let this come out, seemingly more interested in visual bang-for-buck than they were about producing an effective and engaging story.

I was interested in seeing this remake simply to find out if it was as bad as a myriad of critics have suggested it to be . I did love the 1960 version and I am not keen on people remaking my favourite movies , but surely last year`s remake of HG Wells romantic fantasy wasn`t going to be as bad as painted was it ?

Herbert George Wells wrote the source novel so why not call the hero Herbert or George ? It`s also a Victorian sounding name so why`s the hero got a name that resembles Steve Martin`s character in THE MAN WITH TWO BRAINS ? This screenplay just like David Duncan`s from the 1960 version lacks an opening hook but it does speculate that even if time travel did exist it would be impossible to change ones destiny , an interesting thought . Screenwriter

John Logan adds a post modernist sequence featuring both HG Wells and STAR TREK . I didn`t think the humour worked very well but I had to admire his cheek , and since everyone cycles everywhere Logan suggests that in the mid 21st century America has elected a president from the green party which no doubt caused civilisation to collapse . Like most other movies set in the far flung future there are illogical gaps in the screenplay . For example remnants of the present day would still exist . Put it like this : The pyramids of Egypt are a few thousand years old and at the present rate of degeneration they won`t exist in a few thousand years but Alexander goes 798,000 years into the future and the skeletal remains of 21st century New York still remain ! , but as I said this is a common flaw in time travel stories as is the ridiculous notion that hundreds of thousands of years into the future people will still be able to understand and speak English , so this can be forgiven on the grounds of dramatic license . My only real criticism of the screenplay is that John Logan borrows a bit too much from Duncan`s earlier screenplay , otherwise this is a fairly good adaptation on Wells groundbreaking novel . Adding the ubermorlock is an inspired idea that works very well

I`m in two minds who to credit / criticise as director . As you may know Simon Wells left the project days before the project was completed and was replaced by Gore Verbinski so for the purposes of this review I`ll refer to the director simply as " The director " , and the director does manage one show stopping moment as the camera pans out from Alexander at the end of the 19th century across an ever evolving landscape eventually stopping on a lunar colony . The most controversial aspect of the film seems to be the casting or more especially the casting of dark skinned actors as the eloi , but I fail to see what the problem is . The eloi live on the surface in bright sunlight so why shouldn`t they be dark skinned ? It`s also in keeping with the social darwinism of Wells novel . The eloi have evolved due to environment the same way as the ubermorlock has evolved , and social darwinism is totally amoral so there`s no right or wrong , or good and bad involved . I do wish people would stop playing the race card . As for the ordinary morlocks they`re superbly designed with some great make up involved but the director throws a massive spanner in the works by having them running a hundred miles an hour and being able to jump great heights which suddenly makes them unconvincing which is a great pity , they would have worked better as men dressed up rather than CGI supermen . I did like Jeremy Irons as the scene stealing ubermorlock though . A word of warning for those of you who suffer from photo sensitivity , sadly once again this is a movie that heavily features strobe lighting . I`m not epileptic which is just as well because I wouldn`t want to risk a seizure watching THE TIME MACHINE . Sadly there seems to be more and more films being produced with this technique in style used and sadly I`ve had to keep saying - Stop using strobe lighting in movies . It`s totally irresponsible for directors to do this .

To sum up the 2002 remake of THE TIME MACHINE was light years away from the debacle I`d been led to expect . It`s fairly good in its own right but not as good as George Pal`s 1960 version , maybe because it lacks the charm of the former , a charm that movie had in abundance , but this version is still pretty good as remakes go

I had the oppportunity to see "The Time Machine" last night at a special screening in Arlington, Virginia, and I enjoyed it. It does not follow the same plot line as the H.G. Wells book, but in my opinion, that does not detract from the movie. I thought the Orlando Jones character of Vox was quite interesting and amusing, and Jeremy Irons definitely deserved more screentime, as he is a superb actor in every role he takes on. The character development was a little weak, but it was tricky with the time travel aspect. I found the special effects to be good; it is difficult to measure up to some of the special effects that have come out recently, and I think they did a good job. With every new movie that comes out, you have increasingly more spectacular visual effects, especially with the higher budget films. All in all, I think that the actors did a good job, and the movie kept me interested the whole time and was especially good in some parts. I would definitely recommend this movie, and I give it 8 stars.

Alexander Hartdegen (Guy Pearce) is a scientist living in 1899 NYC. He proposes to his girlfriend Emma, but she's killed in a robbery. Four years later, he builds a time machine. However when he tries going back to rescue Emma, she is killed in a different way. Disenchanted, he travels forward in time to 2030 to search for a way to change the past. However he finds nothing about time travel. He jumps forward another 7 years to find the world in collapse and chaos after the moon is destroyed. He tries to use his time machine again but an explosion knocks him out. The machine keeps running until 802,701 AD when he regains consciousness.

The movie works well for awhile, but the future world of Eloi and Morlock is a bit of a letdown. It takes the H. G. Wells world and makes a Planet of the Apes movie out of it. In the end, the well-made movie is let down by this. Also there is an uncompelling action ending. The movie just has nothing profound to say, and is a barely functional action movie.