The Time Machine (2002) Reviews

• How life must have changed for actor Alan Young during forty two years!

  uds32002-05-23

  THE TIME MACHINE which I first saw at its London premiere in 1960 has long remained a personal favorite of mine. I bought the film 17 years ago and my own children grew up with it during the many times we have watched it since. It had a distinct charm and news of its impending remake was of no interest to me...another un-reworkable film if ever there was going to be one! I had no interest in its existence and even less inclination to see it. Dragged, protesting to the theater recently by my daughter who had already seen it and who, under the insane belief that I would enjoy it, strapped me into the seat! Raving incoherently and fully intending to dislike each and every frame, I watched what I expected to be my greatest nightmare since SPEED 2. Well girls and guys...I was so wrong! The remake not only captures and enhances the memory and feel of the original in many ways, it is vastly better! Pearce, who improves mightily as the film progresses (his early wimpy appearance telegraphed danger as far as I was concerned!) is just plain excellent as the slightly unhinged designer. The time machine itself (understandably, with today's fx potential) creams Rod Taylor's 1960 mini-umbrella! Mark Addy makes a great "Philby" very much in the style of Alan Young's original characterisation. Nice touch too, having him cameo here as the florist! For him of course, he has experienced his own "time machine" in the 42 intervening years! "One hit wonder" Samantha Mumba is an acting natural and as the Eloi girl, hits exactly the right note called for in the role. Both she and her younger brother Omero contribute greatly to the film's success. Everything about this film is visually impressive. Wonderfully imaginative sets and masterful cinematography. Jeremy Irons' small but significant role comes off well too! I read complaints about the Morlock make-up? Hello? any of you ever SEEN a Morlock? No??? well then, kindly refrain from negative comment. These guys looked and moved way better than the little furry 1960 creations! I liked also the intent NOT to have Pearce able to reverse the death of his fiancee - that was heightened awareness on someone's part! Add to the above a superb musical score and if this doesn't all make for an entertaining and thought provoking film, hey guys, you're hard to please. Certainly this was never intended for THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS set! It is inarguably the best remake I have ever seen and one of only a few have that ever managed to improve on the original!

• GOOD, ENTERTAINING FUN - but the 1960 Version is Still Tops

  Kirasjeri2002-03-08

  This version of the H.G. Wells classic is quite different from the wonderful 1960 movie starring Rod Taylor. As such, it remains entertaining but is rather more superficial. Nonetheless, I enjoyed it. This one is set in Manhattan instead of London, and the Wintry scenes of New York a century ago were nicely done. Instead of bemoaning the current dismal state of the world as in the 1960 version, our current hero, well-played by Guy Pearce, seeks to go back in time to prevent the untimely death of his beloved fiance. When he discovers this is impossible, he seeks resolution in the future. The special effects of course are good as he moves into that future, although the Geologic changes depicted could never have occurred in less than tens of millions of years. In the future, 800,000 from his present, following a calamity involving the destruction of much of the moon that nearly destroyed Earth (that in lieu of the nuclear holocaust in the 1960 version) he discovers the Eloi, now cliff-dwellers, who are indeed still there, although now instead of looking like blonde blue-eyed Aryans they are a nice Politically Correct cafe au lait color. Curiously, there seems to have been no change or improvement in this species despite those 800,000 years - evolution has apparently ceased. But that was how it was with the 1960 film; in fact, this type of Eloi is more intelligent and active-minded than the nearly brain-dulled zombies Rod Taylor discovered. They must have been more intelligent as they somehow got the steel handcuffs off our hero that had been placed there in the earlier scene in the past. This version is far kinder to the Eloi: our hero never feels rage at how they squandered the knowledge and history of civilization. Yes, books have crumbled, but there is a photonic human-like computer device, a remnant of the New York Public Library which contains every shred of information ever collected. How its power source remains up and running in a Stone Age world is never explained. "Self-contained power", perhaps?! The evil Morlocks are still around, and have evolved, but instead of menacingly appearing at night, or sounding sirens resulting in the Eloi marching catatonic and transfixed to their cannibalistic doom, the Morlocks now attack in broad daylight - and they are very muscular and athletic. In fact, we discover that those are just one type of Morlock - others include those who have emphasized their intellectual development instead of brawn, and Jeremy Irons does a great job as the spooky albino-like head Morlock, the "uber-Morlock". The scary hidden menace of night, in the Taylor version, in the world of the Eloi is missing from this film, unfortunately. Our hero's final battle was quite different from the other versions, and featured an altering of the future/present I still don't entirely understand. But it was compelling and dramatic. I missed the thoughtful tone of the 1960 film in which Taylor (as "George") discussed Time as a Fourth Dimension, and had a close relationship over the years with his friend Filby, and later his son. The scenes where he stopped his Time Machine inside his old boarded up house seventeen years into the future are, regretably, gone - too slow for today's audience, as perceived by the producers. It all created for me a nostalgic even elegiacal emotion I missed in this movie. The end scene where Taylor returned to bring back "three books" for his life with the Eloi is not in the 2002 film. The well-known symbolism in the Wells' book, and somewhat in the 1960 version, of an Upper Class feeding off the labor of the Working Class, cannot be seen at all in this current movie. That despite it being ably directed, at least in part, by his great-grandson, Simon Wells. The performances are generally quite good. Besides the wonderful Mr Irons, Guy Pearce is excellent as Alexander Hartdgen. Samantha Mumba is credible as the the replacement for Yvette Mimieux's Weena - now called Mara. Her actual younger brother plays her film sibling. Although she is an Irish singer, she is also half African, thus satisfying the PC need for the correct complexion. Mark Addy is limited by the script as Filby; in the 1960 version Alan Young was wonderful in that role. Scenery, sets, art direction, and special effects are all quite good. This film was entertaining and enjoyable. I just wish it had also been also as thought-provoking for me as the 1960 Rod Taylor version had been. I know comparisons can be invidious, but they can't be helped when remaking a classic. Nonetheless, worth seeing.

• 90 minutes of pure fun

  MichaelM242002-03-14

  Judging from the initial reaction to THE TIME MACHINE, it seemed official to me that people have forgotten how to have a good time at the theaters these days. But the surprising box office performance in the week following its release seems to now suggest otherwise. This is a really fun movie. It's a tad slow at first, but since it's only a short 96 minutes, things get going pretty quick. Guy Pearce is well-cast as the slightly-nerdy mathmetician, Alexander Hartdegen, and the special effects were very well-done (some were shown unfinished in the trailer and in the TV spots, so don't let that deter you.) Two of the best sequences are the two forward-traveling sequences, the first when Pearce begins his journey into the future, with the change from Victorian era to the future flashing by before us during a terrific pull back from the time machine all the way out of Earth's orbit and around to the far side of the moon, where a ship is coming in for a landing on a colony. The second is when Alexander is knocked unconscious by an explosion tremor in the distant future, when explosives mining on the moon have knocked it from its orbit and have caused it to come apart, showering the Earth with moonrocks, and the time machine speeds forward into the very distant future. It's a terrific sequence in which we see the geological evolution of the area in a matter of moments, from cliffside rock formations taking shape to environmental changes and everything in between. A truely awe-inspiring moment that is one of ILM's finest effects sequences. I also liked how they kept a lot of elements from the original: good friend Mr. Philby, the spider making a web at the top of Alex's greenhouse, the constantly-changing store window mannequin that appears in the building across from Alex's house, the stop at one point in the future to discover that a disastrous incident is occuring (nuclear war in the original, the moonrock shower in this version), and the entrance to the Morlock's underground lair. Even the "talking rings" in the original are sort of brought back, though this time in the form of a holographic New York City public library computer (Orlando Jones), whom Alex first encounters in 2030 and again later in the film, set nearly 800,000 years later. The Eloi this time around are not all blonde and lifeless. In the original, they calmly walk into the Morlock's lair when the horns sound. Here, they run fearing for the lives when the Morlocks come to hunt. And the Morlock's are no longer the lumbering bodybuilders with green body paint and white fright wigs. Here they are taller, more-muscular deadly creatures with an animal-like ferocity, with incredible physical abilities and capable of fast speeds. I think this movie is a good example of what remakes should be. Keeping the concept and elements of the original, while bringing to the material something new. Pearce, as I said, is well-cast as the time traveler, who builds the machine first out of his desire to right a tragedy in his past, then ends up traveling into the future. Samantha Mumba does a fine job in her first feature film role. I'm not too fond of singers who try to make the move to acting (witness the debacles of Britney Spears, Mariah Carey, and countless rappers), but Mumba was pretty good. I have a feeling we'll be seeing her more in the near future. Jeremy Irons' role was too brief, though. Being the Uber-Morlock, I was hoping for more screen time, as well as a lengthier confrontation. But he was still good. If I didn't know it was him, I never would have guessed it. Much to my surprise, his performance is a very restrained one, never exploding into one of those bursting, over-the-top speeches about wanting to overtake the planet. I was also expecting him to attempt to use the time machine to travel back to the past and take control in a time when there were more resources, but that idea (again, much to my surprise and delight) never even comes up. He seemed pretty content just doing things in the time he was in. Still, I would have liked for him to had more screen time. I was also very impressed with the score by newcomer Klaus Badelt, who has worked mostly in association with composer Hans Zimmer, providing "Additional Music" from films liked HANNIBAL and GLADIATOR. His score here is full of action and emotion, with a heroic main theme and a really nice African tribe-like sound for the Eloi. I look forward to the release of the soundtrack, and I'll be keeping a watch for his future projects. He sounds very promising. My only real complaint is that it all goes by too fast. A full two hours would have been great. In comparison between this one and the original film, I suppose some people would say it lacks the charm of the first. The original, despite some dated effects, is still a good movie, with the always-reliable Rod Taylor. I grew up with it on video, so I consider it a childhood favorite. But I also enjoyed this version for the fun-filled action-packed piece of entertainment that it is.

• We 4 hard critics actually liked this film! Great music, and more...

  nz man2002-05-11

  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.

• passable update

  Buddy-512002-03-09

  Any movie version of `The Time Machine' is destined to suffer from the structural inadequacies contained in the original source material (H. G. Wells' 19th Century novel of the same name). The previous 1960 George Pal version could not overcome them and neither can this current update, written by John Logan and directed by Gore Verbinski and Simon Wells. Credit the filmmakers for resisting the modern temptation to transpose Wells' original tale to a contemporary setting. The story still begins in the 1800's, with scientist Alexander Hartdegen (Guy Pearce replacing Rod Taylor in the role) creating a machine with the capability of transporting him back and forth in time. Unlike in the original film version, however, Hartdegen is not motivated by sheer scientific inquisitiveness alone. The writer has provided him with an added personal inspiration for his endeavors in the form of a beautiful young fiancé who is tragically murdered at the moment of their engagement. Hartdegen's overwhelming desire to find a way to return to the past as a way of rewriting the future provides the necessary motivation to get the story rolling. The structural problem alluded to in the opening paragraph boils down to the simple fact that `The Time Machine' is, by its very nature, a tale in which the first and second acts will always far outshine the third (although, regrettably, the third act always ends up taking the bulk of any adaptation's running time). The story is at its most intriguing and compelling in the setting up stage and in the scenes depicting the actual time traveling experience (this was the case in the first version and it is the case here as well). We watch in awe as Hartdegen races across the millennia, seeing life from a strangely sped-up perspective (the special effects here are very impressive). We also enjoy the little side forays he takes into the early 21st Century, where he visits a modernized New York City of 2030 and, a few years down the road, a world threatened by a disintegrating moon. Less compelling is Hartdegen's eventual destination, the world 800,000 years in the future. Those familiar with the earlier version will know all about the earth he ends up encountering, one in which the peace-loving, land dwelling Elois have become fodder for the cannibalistic, subterranean Morlocks, a grim product of evolutionary (or should we say, devolutionary) development. Just parenthetically, one is struck here by just how heavily Pierre Boulle `borrowed' from Wells when constructing his plot for `Planet of the Apes.' Given the obvious limitations of this rather hopeless final act, the makers of this version haven't done a bad job bringing it to the screen, since there really isn't much one can do with it but to turn the whole thing into an extended chase scene anyway. The odd passivity of the Elois in acquiescing to their decreed nutritional fate was, however, captured to greater effectiveness in the 1960 version. One felt caught off balance by the sight of all those people resigning themselves to the inevitable while affording no sympathy for the `loved ones' who were the Morlock's victims. As partial compensation for missing this intriguing aspect, the new film does make the Morlocks appear rather more threatening than they did in the Pal version. However, Jeremy Irons, as the representative of the `intelligentsia' branch of the Morlock race comes in way too late in the story to register effectively, and the climax of the film is both confusing and inexplicable to put it politely. (There is, however, a nice coda at the very end, merging both time periods into a shared spatial dimension). The least believable aspect of this current edition is the fact that the few Elois who still speak English 800,000 years in the future – an absurd notion in its own right – could give Professor Henry Higgins a run for his money in the elocution department. We should all possess their pitch-perfect pronunciation, command of diction and level of vocabulary. Guy Pearce isn't given much opportunity to act in this role and I must say that, in his beardless state at least, his gaunt countenance is almost frightening to gaze upon at times. I don't know what might have happened to him in the year or so since he appeared in `Memento,' but someone needs to buy that poor boy a substantial meal from time to time. In some of the early scenes in the film, in particular, he looks positively freakish. I kept looking for signs of deliberate tampering by the makeup artists and wondered how some future alteration in his appearance might play a significant role in the narrative's development. It never happened, which leads me to wonder if Pearce might not himself be morphing into a Morlock. Special mention must me made of the superb art direction that adorns the film. The sets depicting 19th Century New York City are particularly impressive. Overall, `The Time Machine' does a better job revisiting its source material than Tim Burton's `Planet of the Apes' did last year. That may, indeed, be faint praise – but praise nonetheless.