|
"The
Time Machine" is a story about a scientist named Alexander Hartdegen
who builds-- you guessed it-- a time machine. Alexander has always
been interested in time travel but when he loses the love of his life,
Emma, he becomes obsessed with inventing the machine. He tries
multiple times to go back into the past and save Emma but every time he
does she dies in a new way-- as though it were her fate. Alexander
then decides that maybe the answer to changing the past lies in the
future-- so he travels into the future.
Far into the
future Alexander encounters a human civilization that lives in peace but
has a dark secret. The people of this land are hunted by fearful
creatures called Moorlocks. The Moorlocks chase after the people
and basically round them up for slaughter like cattle. Alexander can't understand
why the people do not fight back to save themselves so he brings it upon
himself to rescue them all.
It's an interesting
story with great visual effects, but many minor problems. I hate
to compare the new movie to it's original but I feel I must. In
the original movie the people of Earth lived in harmony-- basically
Utopia-- because the Moorlocks took care of them and provided them will
everything they could ever want. This movie didn't really explain
that aspect of the human-Moorlock relationship (at least if it did I
wasn't paying attention) and I think it is a pretty important
point. Also, the people in the original movie were taken by the
Moorlocks for food but they had no idea that it happened-- they were
more like dumb sheep. The way the people lived in the original
movie made a lot more sense and it was easy to see why they didn't fight
back-- they didn't know any better and they were never frightened in the
first place.
A few
other things bothered me about the film: it's obvious that
Alexander tried to save Emma multiple times, but the film only showed
him trying to save her twice and didn't even hint that maybe he tried
again, and again, and again-- which I would assume he would. It
just seemed weird that he tried only twice and then gave up so quickly--
he never would have gone into the future if he could have saved her and
I think it was an important point to make-- that is was her destiny to
die and perhaps his destiny to help the people in the future.
Also, the Moorlocks were really lame looking monsters and they acted way
too much like the apes from the newer "Planet
of the Apes" (they ran and jumped around exactly the same way
the apes did). Finally, Alexander mentioned to Emma (one
time when he tried to save her) that if she met up with him later in the
day he might be angry with her and wonder why she didn't meet him at the
park (so he met up with her before his past self would have and took her
somewhere else)-- so that suggests that Alexander could catch up with
himself in the past. It just bugged me that it was mentioned sort
of as an afterthought and never really mattered-- it would have been
more interesting if he had at least seen himself in the past-- otherwise
why mention it at all?
Although I
have a few complaints about the movie, generally I really enjoyed
it. I thought it was extremely entertaining and fun to
watch. Sometimes that's all a movie should have to be. Let's
not compare the movie too much to the original-- just see this and enjoy
it for what it is-- a visually entertaining movie with an interesting
plot.
-- Patsy
( 3 out of 4 pops )
Talk
about this film with other Popkorn Junkies |
|
Other Junkie's
opinions.....
Matt
( 2 1/2 out of 4 pops )
Having never read H.G. Wells' novel, I went into this movie fresh.
I think the premise of time-travel is a great one, and one that could
spawn a fascinating story. This is a pretty good film, which
I could find very few flaws in. It's fun, enjoyable and overall
harmless. But the story isn't all that fascinating. I just
felt more could've been done with the brilliant premise. But maybe
it was being faithful to the novel--I don't know, I haven't read it.
Guy Pearce is great, as always, and I did like this film. It just
left me wanting more. It makes a good rental, though.
James ( 3 out of 4 pops )
I saw this last night and before I tell ya about it I wanna say this:
it's not for kids. It's very scary and mind-boggling. There was
this little girl (looked to be around 9) in the front of me and
throughout the film she kept bouncing back to the row behind me to ask
her mother what's going on. She kept insisting she was
"100% freaked out". LOL, no joke...I thought that was
adorable. Anyhoo,
the film is pretty decent. Not great, but definitely fun to
watch. It gets and keeps your attention. But it really
didn't go to any lengths to explain how the time machine worked, and
it was rather confusing as to what the exact year was because they
didn't show the year meter very long. But
I'm going give this a good review because it held my attention and had
killer special effects. "Back to the Future" eat your
heart out! I loved how they showed both times happening at the same
time! Fun
and enjoyable
Pappy ( 1 out of 4 pops )
My
suggestion for anyone considering watching this film is to hop into a
time machine and rent the original Rod Taylor version of the "Time
Machine".
The original was great.
This is one, like many films since the big success of the
Titanic, forces a boring love story into it.
They also seemed to panic near the end of the film and made up
goofy situations so they could shove in a buncha of grade B special
effects.
This should be a movie for thinkers, but with one if you think
too much you will realize how silly and illogical they made it.
Billy Ray ( 1
out of 4 pops )
Look--up in the sky--it's a bird, it's a plane, it's a time
machine? Some films are better left unmade, or should
that be better left un-remade? The original was
extraordinary--the new one (sorry for the lack of thought) sucks.
Guy Pearce comes off a fabulously confusing performance in "Memento",
gives us a wonderful villainous touch in "The
Count of Monte Cristo", and then delivers this steaming
pile of cinema feces, evidently just for the paycheck involved.
I really disliked every aspect of this film, except the performance
from Jeremy Irons, who is always enjoyable. Samantha Mumba is
a terrible actress and Mark Addy was only funny in "The Full
Monty". Orlando Jones could have been a good actor, but
since "Say
It Isn't So", I will always regard him as a second rate
actor--there is no redemption. Will this film make my list of
the worst of the year? Likely. Will this film open big,
but then quickly sink at the box office? Probably not.
Is that a shame? Hell yes.
|
