| REGISTERIT'S FREE! |
 |
 |
 |
RECEIVE custom news |
|
|
TRACK your favorites |
|
|
BUILD your fan profile |
|
|
POST messages |
|
| LOGIN | SIGN UP TODAY |
|
| The Time Machine |
  |
Distracted, Dissipointing Film! |
|
| POSTED Monday , March 11, 2002 02:02:07 PM |
 |
Here's my rough-draft review of The Time Machine. There are VERY small spoilers- nothin big.
Movieman Steve
The Time Machine
(Negitive, Minor Spoilers)
I thought that the orignal "The Time Machine" had a much better grip on the storyline. In that 1960 version, they focused on the aspect of time travel, but instead the 2002 version tried to make the whole thing about his short-lived fiance dying in the park and the manner in which he wants to change it with his invention of the time machine.
They added unnessesary details about the time travler (and by the way, the book never told the name of the man. Curiosity drove the time travler, originally, and personally I thought that was more interesting and more practical. It's a sci-fi pic, not some "timeless" love story. Without the distraction of his girlfriend, the story was easier to follow, and generally made the film what it was.
This remake on the other hand focused on the fact that Alexander (the time travler) was wanting to know why he couldn't change the past, because of his girlfriend's death. In addition to the distractoin, as it was, the main story was put in a bad situation, beacuse to add this extra thing, therefore what it used to be was forced to be was rushed. With that, the glue that kept it smooth, as taken away- and ment that it all became a big, choppy plot.
Every storyline loss adds up, and in the end, I was frustrated and felt like the whole damn movie was cut up and put together with Elmers. I looked at my friend and we were like "What the hell was that?!" I mean, it seemed they took you that far in time (800,000 years, which in contradiction to many, I thought was an interesting amount of time.. although the moon being broken apart and destorying Earth was on the stupid side.) we're left with a particle of truth, a scrap of imagination, and a whole lot of unanswered questions.
Having seen the orignal, I knew what it all ment, but for those who havn't, the basis of the 2002 film may be fuzzy. Without the amazing special effects and beautiful sets and costume, it's basicly nothing more than a elementery sci-fi re-relling. (By the way- Guy Pearce gives a good performance, not great, but seems distracted and numb the whole journey) What they needed for this film was a better script more than anything! (Ten minutes into the film the whole story is supposivly "set up"- but that's not true, the dialogue is dry and fast, and character development was something to be desired.. thoughout the entire movie.) Maybe if they would have got something with a nack for this kind of stuff to write the screenplay, then this movie would have been a pure joy. I mean, the (original) story was really very interesting and you've got Guy Pearce and a hell of a lot of special effects. But no, they chose to put the script last.
Some may say it's just fun and lacks plot, but after seeing the original film, it was very frustracting to watch a film with endless potential go to waste. Yeah, the visuals and stuff were great eye candy, but when they're stuck in the middle of such a dissapointing mess, their effect is minimal.
Instead of the 8 dollars or so, drive down to Blockbuster and rent a copy of the 1960 version of "The Time Machine," beacuse I have a feeling this film will grow stale just as fast as 2001's "Planet of the Apes" could relate to.
Grade: C-
 Movieman Steve
-movieman129@countingdown
.com-
" I really want to enforce my unofficial rule that people who can't pronounce a movie's title aren't allowed to rent it." |
|
 Edit  Reply w/quote |
|
|
| REPLIED Monday , March 11, 2002 02:43:06 PM |
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure- but all I know is this movie let me down sooooo much! I've been waiting for it for about 6 months, and for next-to-nothing.
Maybe they should have made this the 2hr. 30min. movie it should have been to satisfy the whole story. Nothing should have been left.