Most Helpful Customer Reviews
28 of 35 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Glitzier Does Not Mean Better, August 10, 2002
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
12 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Fun but forgettable, July 27, 2002
"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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
OK...But Could Have Been Alot Better, July 29, 2002
Simon Wells' "Time Machine" is an ambitious F/X laden re-make of the original sci-fi classic starring Rod Taylor as a time traveller who witnesses the destruction of civilization and travels 800,000 years into the future to find that mankind has survived a planetary catastrophe, but has in the process evolved into two speperate species, the submissive Eloi and the cannabalistic Morlocks. This new adaptation sticks closer to the 1960 film far more than H.G. Wells' classic novel, but despite the great sets, special effects, and Samantha Mumba's skimpy outfit, something is desperately missing from this outting. Guy Pearce stars as Alexander Hartdegan, an eccentric physics professor from turn-of-the-century New York City who becomes obsessed with building a time machine after the tragic death of his fiance. Despite his attempts to travel back in time to save his love from death, he finds that he cannot change the past, and thus embarks on a journey into the future to find the answer as to why. After a brief stop-over in 2030 NYC, he witnesses the destruction of civilization as the Moon, blown asunder by a nuclear accident, rains down upon the earth and virtually wipes out mankind. He accidentally travels forward 800,000 years into the future only to find that, as in the original, humans have now evolved into two seperate species. It is here that the film loses it's energy and becomes bogged down in typical action fare and overblown special effects that tend to overpower and kill the story. While undeniably amazing, unfortunately, special effects do not make a good story. The film also suffers from a few big plot holes that are hard to ignore. For example, after only what is essentially a few hours of time travelling, Hartdegen seems to have completely forgotten his obsessive love for his dead fiance and falls for the beautiful Eloi woman Mara. Would someone who was so driven and grief-striken as our hero seems to be for the loss of his true love manage to totally forget about her in the course of a few hours or days? The film also feels as if it loses pacing in the middle, as if needed scenes are missing. Certain scenes ARE missing regarding the destruction of Earth during the fall of the Moon. These key scenes were cut in post-production after September 11 because they showed NYC being destroyed in a fiery rain of meteorites. I feel that these scenes may have helped add something to the film as it is never really made clear what happened that caused the destruction of the earth, as we are basically given a quick shot of the break-up of the Moon and the chaos that ensues, but the emotional tie-in that SHOULD be there is lost. In the original film, when Rod Taylor witnesses the destruction of his beloved London during a atomic attack, we feel the terror and awe of the destruction of all civilization, as it truly is the end of the world as we know it. "The labor of centuries...gone in an instant!" It illustrates man's frailty and transience in this world, how we hang precariously from a weak branch despite our belief in our own invulnerablity. But here, we get no such emotionally charge event, nothing to show the terror that anyone who witnesses the anihilation of the world as he knows it would experience. In losing this we lose something else that seems to leave the story lifeless as it degenerates into a Planet of the Apes rehash. Despite a strong opening, the Time Machine loses its momentum in the last half and we are left, once again, wanting something more.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|