Customer Reviews

The Time Machine [VHS]

5 star:		(63)
4 star:		(60)
3 star:		(58)
2 star:		(64)
1 star:		(45)

 

 

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.

"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.

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.

Once again, Hollywood underestimates the intelligence of its audience by torturing a socially-conscious novel into an over-hyped, under-cooked, popcorn movie. Do the guys at Dreamworks seriously believe we are so unintelligent that we cannot cope with a decent adaptation? Would we all run screaming from the cinema, demanding our money back because there weren't enough romantic scenes, chase sequences, plot holes, or cortex-splintering special effects? Or maybe their reasoning is more sinister: perhaps a dystopian fantasy about an effete leisure class living off the misery of a race of underlings is simply too close to the actual relationship between Hollywood executives and the audience. But hey, it wasn't all bad, I guess. The time machine itself was beautiful, and the initial trip to 2030 was superbly done. The music wasn't bad, either. And Guy Pearce did a fine job, given what he had to work with. I just wish Hollywood would leave sci-fi novels alone - or have the guts to do them properly. If you want to tell your own time travel story, fine. Go do it. But don't call it 'The Time Machine' and try to trade on the success of novel you clearly don't respect.

First there was H.G. Wells' classic novel. Then there was the classic film of 1960 by George Pal. Since the 2002 version of "The Time Machine" is based on these two works (much more on Pal then on Herbert George), some comparision between them is unavoidable.

The first 20 minutes of the new "Time Machine" are its best. Ironically, this is the only portion of the film which isn't based on either Pal or H.G. Wells... Instead, it gives us a completely new and original background story for the time traveller: In this film, it is a personal tragedy which compells the hero to build a time machine and try to change the past.

After the time traveller (named "Alexander" in this film) fails to manipulate his personal past, he embarks on a journey into the future to search for the reason he failed. Once he touches that lever which sends the machine to the future, the film follows the same plot as the 1960 version of "The Time Machine". This point, about 25 minutes into the film, marks the end of "The Time Machine 2002 - a decent sci-fi film" and the beginning of "The Time Machine 2002 - the lame remake".

Why lame? Because the "remake" portion of the film is far worse then original 1960 version in almost every aspect. There are a few exceptions which are noted below:

1. The time machine itself. As much as the original 1960 machine was neat, it really can't compare with the incredible design work Dreamworks did for the 2002 version: The new time machine is an absolute beauty.

2. Orlando Jones as the Digital Librarian in the future, Vox. He provides both a comic relief and a couple of touching scenes near the end of the film.

3. The time travel sequences. The amazing computer graphics compensate here for the lack of personal touch (Although the original 1960 version does retain its own charm).

These good points take, perhaps, 10 minutes of the film. The love story and tragedy in the beginning takes another 20 minutes... 30 decent minutes out of a 96-minute movie. And the ending of the film sucks too (I won't give it away, but it DOES suck big time).

All-in-all, this film is a disappointment. It certainly is an entertaining way to spend 96 minutes, but that's all it is. Wells fans are still waiting for a decent modern version of Herbert George's time travel tale.

On the spur of the moment I rented The Time Machine the other night. I had heard mixed reviews but I'm a sci-fi fan and a H. G. Wells nut so I thought what the heck. I was extremely surprised how much I enjoyed it. It wasn't perfect but it had so many things to like that I would most sincerely recommend it.

Probably the weakest aspect of this movie is the plot. It's not bad but average at best. It follows the book relatively so, although they made the time traveler's purpose much more compelling. We're taken step-by-step through his tragedies to his travels into the past and future. The movie doesn't really hit it's stride until about the half-way mark when we're introduced to the Eloi, a race of humans 800,000 years in the future. The pace begins to build to a exiting but predictable climax.

What makes this movie a must see is the way it was put together. The cast is first rate. Guy Pierce plays a lost but dedicated scientist wonderfully well. Samantha Mumba deserves credit for her performance, considering this was her first major picture role. Jeremy Irons is just excellent in a limited role as the ultimate "villian." His portrayal of the uber-Morlock could have been just a straight forward "I'm-evil-and-you're-not" villian but instead we're treated to a very complex character. Both likable and detestable. Orlando Jones plays a computer-generated figure who somehow has survived all the years, first meeting the traveler in the year 2030, then again after 800,000 years. Although the concept is a little weak Jones' characher is necessary to bring the good Dr. (and us) up to date. It was an neat addition.

The very best part of this was the music. The Klaus Badelt score was awesome at the very least. He has the talent to capture the mood without overpowering the scene. His soundtrack coupled with Simon Wells beautiful vison makes for a great experience. Also the very last scene showing characters in two different times showed real imagination.

I would recommend this movie to anyone who goes to the theater to escape. As long as you try not to out-think yourselves you will enjoy it.

This movie was in one word "Terrible." I watched the movie after having read the book and was utterly disappointed. Apparently Simon Wells (the director) had no intention to preserve the plot of the book. He added characters (Emma) and changed the appearance of the Eloi - just to name a few minor details. In addition to the disparities between the book and the plot, the appearance of the Morlocks in the movie was almost fake (think Congo). The only bright spots in the movie were the acting of Jeremy Irons (Uber-Morlock) and the beautiful women - Sienna Guillory and Samantha Mumba. Not only would I not go buy a ticket in the movie theater to rent this, I wouldn't even rent it on video. I think there are other versions which I understand are better.

On the upside, this film turned out to be not nearly as bad as the reviews I had read would have led me to believe. It had, in fact, a number of good aspects. It was great to look at, and the special effects added considerably to the story. Guy Pearce was good in the lead role, and Samantha Mumba was remarkably fetching as Mara, the woman he would meet 800,000 years in the future.

But there were just too many undeveloped or hard to swallow elements for this to be a good film, and it too often became merely unintelligible. I have read Heidegger and Spinoza, Habermas and Derrida, Duns Scotus and Deleuze, so I can understand difficult texts and ideas when called to. But there is a different between a merely difficult idea and an unintelligible one, and the central dilemma of this film--"Why can't I change the past?"--was dealt with in an unacceptably blithe and confused manner. The "answer" as mouthed by Jeremy Irons, in a role that was more of a cameo than a real part, was unforgivably simplistic and superficial, not to say unconvincing. But there were so many other moments that were so improbable that it was hard to take this movie seriously. For instance, the Orlando Jones computer generated character appears not only in the early 21st century, but in the distant future as well, in the ruins of a former city. What powered the computer that contained his database? How did people hundreds of thousands of years in the future retain a perfect knowledge of the dead English language, and speak with a perfect accent? How did our hero know that jamming the gears of his time machine would have the effect it would? There were a host of other problems as well.

If you don't ask questions of this film, and don't expect it to deliver much, it can provide a couple of hours of delicious eye candy. But if you try to force it to make sense, you will hate it. In the former, you end up not taking it seriously, which is on one level to do it and its makers a disservice. On the latter, however, you do them the compliment of taking the film seriously, but at the cost of condemning it. I hope I can be forgiven for taking it as simple minded, light entertainment.

This 2002 cinematic version, supposedly of H.G. Wells time machine, is totally lacking in any of the charm of the 1960 version. As another viewer pointed out: H.G.Well's story is social commentary, and like the writings of Dickens, stands the test of time while pointing out the continued failings of humanity. To claim this cannot be protrayed in a movie version has as much truth as saying Citizen Cane whould have been better to avoided the subjects of greed, corruption, and averarice. Skip this version - buy the 1960 version.

The makers of this film saw fit to re-write H.G. Wells classic. Wells was a genius. The rewrite man was a "hack". Apparently significant changes were made to fit the graphic desigh of the wotld of the future. In doing so the original plot was rendered mindless. If you have never read the book or seen the last "Time Machine" you might possibly like this one, even with the nagging sense of "this does not make sense".
Or buy this one then treat yourself to the good version from the 1950s or thereabouts.