The Time Machine (2002) - Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi

Hohum Score



Hoping to alter the events of the past, a 19th century inventor instead travels 800,000 years into the future, where he finds humankind divided into two warring races.

Director: Simon Wells
Stars: Guy Pearce, Yancey Arias
Length: 96 Minutes
PG Rating: PG-13
Reviews: 134 out of 639 found boring (20.97%)

One-line Reviews (452)

There's about fifty more continuity problems in here, I'm sure, but it would take way too long to list them.

This is an enjoyable remake that doesn't follow the original closely and I'm okay with that.

It also is very intriguing adn has a message just like the original.

This is very very slow to start with.

Pointless and silly remake.

I enjoyed it more then I enjoyed the book, mostly because the book was pretty depressing.

Hate me if you must, but not only did I not hate this movie, I enjoyed it and would recommend it.

A Very Enjoyable Remake .

What a lousy, uninspired bland story, with no imagination.

I enjoyed Guy Pearce's intense portrayal of the lovelorn Alex Hartdegan searching for the answer to his plaintive "what if?

Disjointed mess .

All in all, entertaining enough, and definitely good-looking, so if that's what you're up for, hey, go for it.

other than that it was pretty boring!

I mean, since no actual time machine exists yet, it is pointless to argue what it can be powered by or how much of what kind of power is necessary, etc. Although the Back to The Future's time machine that required a carefully balanced mix of high speed motion and influx of great number of Gigawatts of electricity made a more convincing (though somewhat humorous) impression of a time-traveling apparatus.

So to say that this is a total waste of time isn't accurate.

He offers a fun, silly performance that's both enjoyable and unnecessary.

All in all, it is worth watching My score : 6 of 10

All of his imaginative and thought-provoking concepts were jettisoned in the name of a bog-standard hero-saves-hapless-'maiden', romance-against-adversity tale as crass as 'Pearl Harbour' and as predictable as 'Titanic'.

What really bugged me is the esoterical soundtrack and one of the most boring fight-scenes I EVER saw in cinema (not the boss-fight, that is...

Good, exciting, all around awesome film.

While it has all the elements for success – a strong leading man, a compelling story and good special effects – the film cannot seem to make up its mind as to what it wants to be.

I didn't enjoy the movie because the whole story was too slow with no plot.

But because the storyline became confusing, it lost some of its appeal.

I'd recommend seeing it if you're in the mood for a suspenseful, visual effects-heavy film.

As I watched this movie I thought it was so boring.

Please stop to make films only for special effects it is so boring.

In spite of all this, I found the film engrossing enough to keep my attention and interest for it's entire duration, if only leaving me wanting more.

Clearly, it's a rough mosaic deal, pasted with disjointed cuts and borrowed patches that fail to fit!

Predictable and Blah ending .

His travels take him to VOX, a computer version of Orlando Jones who is extremely intelligent and has a snappy attitude, and the crash landing of the moon.

Theyare way too intense and I can only imagine how my 6-year old nephew will react to it.

Director Simon Wells never takes joy into consideration, so we have a flaccid and just plain boring B-movie.

so I think of this as a different twist on the same story, and it turns out to be quite entertaining.

Very good effects; boring script .

The modernization of the past movie and book makes this movie very enjoyable, especially if you have seen the old version and/or read the book.

Still, enjoyable.

Maybe lowered expectations played a role, but basically I enjoyed it from start to finish.

The very dynamic character spawned by Rod Taylor's depiction in the 1960 film was more compelling, more admirable, and more heroic.

While entertaining and well presented, this film bears only a superficial resemblance to the original of 1960.

Overall I enjoyed it.

Don't waste your money.

It is unsatisfying and a waste of time.

What a waste of time .

Okay, The Time Machine is not a *great* film, but it is nonetheless an enjoyable movie experience.

Still gave it a 7 because I did stay awake the whole time, even when Irons wasn't onscreen.

My dreams are more exciting than The Time Machine, and they are usually a repeat of my workday.

I wish the whole journey through time had been more entertaining.

At the same time as wrenching my mind, the film managed to make the story very entertaining, although the predatory race of humanoids is quite beyond the stretches of believability.

Sure, pieces of it were a bit predictable.

A true waste of time, money and effort.

With all these points, this movie is pointless, just like this review and my life.

I just think I did a marvelous job of confusing myself.

)Its predictable nature.

Or did I fall asleep and miss the part where everything is explained???

The movie isn't bad, it's actually entertaining and I am not so bothered by the time traveler having made the time machine to save his love.

Orlando Jones (Evolution) is an entertaining if totallyunrealistic diversion who thankfully isn't as annoying as Chris tucker in the Fifth Element.

Wells 'The Time Machine' (we saw the actual time machine prop and many design and behind the scenes pics last AUGUST of 2001 at the San Diego ComiCon), and anyone who ignored those ads missed out; this movie was a lot of fun and had some very engaging themes and ideas to boot.

Stodgy direction and editing although it contains some very nice set pieces eg. when the Morloks attack the village and Vox the hologram encyclopaedia(played by the excellent Orlando Jones)are well conceived and executed.

I wouldn't waste your time reading it; I found it almost as tiresome as it was pretentious.

Looking past the usual glitz and glamor, the story is somewhat formulaic (so was the original book, even in its day!

We have major turning points in the film which last for seconds, while minor scenes are dragged out.

This movie may not be making any movie history, but it is highly entertaining.

There was chemistry, we came to like the characters, and the late 19th century scene was engaging.

With the humanity and the emotion built into the story, the delivery is quite stiff and dull and I found myself surprised by how little interest I had it the story even when I was far into it.

If you loved the early-60's version of "The Time Machine", don't waste your time; as with last year's "The Planet of the Apes", this has been "reimagined", and not for the better.

Nice and entertaining fantasy flick.

But don't waste your time or money on this movie.

This is a shame because his character is by far the most intriguing out of the entire film.

I'm sorry, someone told me this was based on HG Wells Time Machine but they must have been confused because this was a hokey, bland piece of crap.

I have nothing to compare this film to because I haven't seen the original, but this particular film went from great, to somewhat boring.

I came to the IMDb to see if anyone else understood the plot but from the reviews I've read here it seems that other viewers were either too bored to bother trying to check the plot or so easily pleased that a consistent plot wasn't of any concern to them!

Too bad nobody associated with the movie wanted to waste their time with it.

But still overall it's a good movie, and entertaining.

The plot is fairly nonsensical, the story is disjointed, the early scenes are dragged out interminably before anything really interesting happens, a lot of the dialogue is cheesy and inane, and the the Morlocks look like they were designed by a senile makeup artist left over from the original series of Lost In Space.

It's much different from the original George Pal version, but much more modern and exciting!

And there are some exciting GCI visual effects that may cause kids to squirm.

I, for one, enjoyed it very much.

This is because I found it very intriguing seeing the advancement from how the world was when H.

Cue heavy use of CGI and scary creatures that might as well be LOTR orcs (yawn), another bad dude and a big and poorly explained explosion.

Overall, this film is an entertaining adaptation of the 1960 classic and story.

Often silly and rushed, but highly enjoyable nonetheless.

Sad, pointless waste of film.

The story, while familiar to many, was still suspenseful and moved at a good pace.

I enjoyed it for the most part, and find it very clever in many aspects.

I thought Time Machine was a very entertaining film.

Save your money, do not go see the Time Machine, 2002 version.

Highly entertaining in spite of plotholes .

It's slow, pedantic, over-acted and drowned by an overly loud and pervasive score that tries to substitute music for emotion and excitement.

Jeremy Irons' scene where he and Alexander are having a dreary conversation, could have been a bit longer and perhaps a little bit more interesting, as well as the film could have been extended at least a half an hour.

It had real potential, and despite its flaws, is an enjoyable enough romp.

Blowing up the Moon to destroy humanity is pointless -- and doesn't do much for science literacy.

Pointless and boring; goes nowhere.

He is much better in tough-guy and suspenseful roles (L.

One feels that in this film, the time-travel aspect was just a starting-off point for a banal adventure film depicting conflict between two classes of people, the Eloi and the Morlocks whereas in the original film, these same creatures/beings were part of the film without necessarily dominating it to the same extent, and in the remake there is certainly a lot more unnecessary violence than in the original, presumably to satisfy todays audiences' thirst for this.

An enjoyable adventure through time.

(and they gave Gosford Park, a movie which was BO-RING but had an voyeuristic type approach to giving the audience a view of "the basement" and the "main floor" people, but in essence was a very boring movie.

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.

Don't waste your time reading the so called reviews of miserable idiots, why do people have to judge a new film made of an existing story by an older film of the story, time wasters😠

The future world, however, was rather boring and less interesting the farther in the future he went (contrary to my assumptions).

I know that mostly everyone has forgotten this spiritless and pointless failure of a movie that was obviously intended to leave bad impression of H.

As a result, the whole movie seems very disjointed.

The strangest thing about this film is that they dragged out the great, great, great grandson (or something) of HG Wells to direct this thing; strange, since it only bears a passing resemblance to the original book.

It used a corny contrived idea, that of the fiancee (who isn't in the novel) who gets killed as an impetus for Alex to create the machine.

Industrial Light and Magic did some really cool visual effects on this film - watching 800,000 years pass by in 30 seconds is really fascinating - the thing where the vines over the arbor UN-GROW themselves is really strange to watch.

My goodness was I bored.

My wife and I found this version of The Time Machine to be entertaining, imaginative, and thought provoking.

From here on in TTM is too much like the new Planet of the Apes, another movie that bored me.

very confusing.

Near the climax, the storyline became confusing.

In the film's first of many unintentionally comic missteps, he leaves his machine unattended in an improbably empty urban space, where no one interferes with it.

Mind you, it is no masterpiece, but 'The Time Machine' is highly entertaining and benefits from its relatively short running time.

The movie is fast paced and intelligent.

The dictionary has a picture of this movie beside the definition of slow.

The whole movie was enjoyable.

Actually, it has no more "first time making a film" errors than, say, Barbra Streisand's enjoyable "Yentl", which also had some of the same errors we see here in terms of some flat deliveries here and there and the like (and even in some of Walt Disney's earliest live action flicks as well).

He's given what I guess are philosophical points to make in his brief appearance but I must be slow because I didn't get them.

Guy Pearce continues his tradition of playing smug, arrogant intellectuals tormented by some cliché painful loss.

I have just recently seen this movie and enjoyed it very much.

Some brilliant moments, as others had noted, The turn of the century New York scenes were stunning, the apocalypse scenes as well as the future New York scenes worked well.

can you say slow.

Rating: 7 , entertaining and charming .

Hey, I know if you are a purist then you more than likely won't enjoy this movie, but I have to admit, this flick grabbed me by the coat tails and dragged me along for the duration.

The subplots that are added here and there (most particularly how the moon was destroyed) are fascinating, each one capable of making another film entirely out of such ideas.

Wells exciting and wonderful story.

OK, story is a little suspicious.. I admit that I haven't read the book but since the book is a classic, the story was taken apart and manipulated into many other forms so that now when author's grandson tries to make his grandpa's story into a motion picture he is accused of using a banal story.. Ironic.

All things considered, a fairly entertaining graft of current outlook onto a Victorian concept.

It's entertaining and worth the effort to see it.

The fears over technology going too far, my favourite background bit (there were many of these, and they were entertaining) must have been the continuity with Lunar Leisure.

I beg of you don't waste the time seeing this movie.

I had the oppportunity to see "The Time Machine" last night at a special screening in Arlington, Virginia, and I enjoyed it.

This is equally just as bad of an idea as that pretentious hack Gus Van Sant remaking a Hitchcock film.

enjoyable difference from original .

There are some fascinating shots and set design choices, and Jeremy Irons is fantastic in his all-too-brief villain role.

this is one of the worst movies i have seen in quite some time...

Mumba looks pretty and is effective but is just a reason for the hero to go through the heroic numbers in a typical Hollywood action packed light show final.

Well, that was a waste of time.


Certainly the hunting scenes in the forest were better than the similar scenes in Tim Burton's `Planet Of The Apes' and much more exciting.

*yawn* .

THE TIME MACHINE never takes itself seriously, and in its beginning sequences it's a pleasure to drink in the laid-back, predictable storytelling, completely tongue-in-cheek style, and popping your eyes out at the marvelous special effects showing Alexander traveling through time to the year 2030.

The change I found the most ridiculous was the addition of Jeremy Irons' character, the "telepathic" Morlock which I just found pointless and made him look like some kind of albino drag queen.

The special effects during the time travel of the cities and climate changes were entertaining, and the art direction of the world of the future was creative, though, gee, some folks manage to still speak good English.

For the rest, the performances are poor, the music is unmemorable, there are too many unnecessary characters and the action scenes are dull.

This whole fiasco could and should have been implied because it merely served to fill up the running time with an utterly predictable and clichéd reason for the invention; a reason that is neither plausible nor true to the book.

This Planet of the Apes wannabe/ripoff took the original concept, removed anything of value, and replaced it with a cliched & predictable pseudo-love story, cheap CGI, and a dramatically repetitive soundtrack.


Indeed, the slickly done remake sets its sights much higher than the original movie but ascends to pretentious pinnacles without achieving a cathartic effect.

The special effects are riveting, the Morlocks are truly scary, and the action well-paced.

When I left the theater,I thought to myself how a more different setup where the film explains more about Alexander's obsession with time travel rather than the events that happened to his fiance would have been more appropriate.

But ho hum on the battles with the underground enemy, even when led by Jeremy Irons.

It was pretty exciting all the way through, the music was super, the storyline was good enough, the special effects were great and the acting was fine.

The 'explosion' of the time machine, is so utterly contrived a plot device, simply for an alternative to the old 'blow something big up for the end' trick.

Time's been kind to this story, unlike some of Wells' work, and there was an opportunity to tell a really good tale here whilst still being trendy and engaging...

Not only do they BARELY feature the changing dress-store figures, they make even the time machine itself an anachronistic, gaudy glass-n-chrome bore!

Don't waste your time - it is dreadful.


This remake was far better than the Planet of the Apes remake, much more entertaining and fun to watch.

The plot went nowhere, floating off into oblivion.

The effects here are truly stunning in many respects - the time machine itself is a marvel (the DVD has a feature on the making of the machine), and the time transformation scenes are very inspiring, up to and including the zoom-away shot from the machine into the air all the way to the city on the moon.

I was impressed and enjoyed it thoroughly.

Overall, a very entertaining, enjoyable watch...

Otherwise, please, don't waste our time.

The beginning was intriguing, the middle seemed sterile and the end felt rushed.

It was a very entertaining film.

In either case and for what it's worth, The Time Machine is a sad ,pointless waste of film IMHO.

If you haven't seen this mess yet, don't waste your time.

Stunningly unimaginative and stupefyingly dull, this exercise in remake-mania circa 2002 AD is an affront to H.

The story by the way is very good, but I was thinking, that there were some contradictions with the simple logic, so it seemed to be unpredictable.

The script and the acting were so lackluster that I had trouble staying awake.

I felt that the new Planet of the Apes movie was quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen.

Maybe the problem is that so many of us have read the book and seen the mediocre but enjoyable early version of this story.

Other than the spot on casting, which is enjoyable and fun and really well portrayed, what brings you into this film are the sets and sceneries.

Instead of an 'armchair with a spinning parasol' from the 1950's movie, we had something that was both mechanical in a 19th century fashion, but with an 'optical-visual' update that made it seem wonderfully contrived.

While nothing earth shattering or special, the film is fairly entertaining with Guy Pearce as a scientist who invents a time machine in an attempt to save his murdered fiancee.

Enjoyable .

the time our hero takes to actually reach the year 802701, are quite thrilling what with him trying to thwart the death of his fiancée, visit to a science museum in about the year 2030 and the awesome possibility of a broken-up moon wreaking havoc on earth.

Entertaining movie.

The time-travel scene in which the camera panned out into space was stunning!

Fun and exciting .

His transition in the movie from a slightly odd but charming Victorian New Yorker, curious about every new machine or idea, into a man singularly driven to find the answer to his question was believable and entertaining.

No more time travelling, just stuck in some boring future primitive setting.

The special effects are breathtaking and extremely creative.

I don't really recommend this movie to anyone-there's plenty of movies out there right now that'll make you laugh or keep you on the edge of your seat, instead of making you leave in confusion as the movie ends abruptly.

As soon as the empty zone were discovered, another group from some distance away would simply move in and the original problem would reappear.

So what if it isn't Lord of the Rings, or Insomnia or Spiderman.

The film ends on an attempted high-note, but the generic standards of the whole second half leave you uncaring with its predictable resulting character accomplishments and new love interest.

It's an engrossing story and The Time Machine didn't seem to whisk me away like the book did.

Gripping, superb...

The tiresome good guy vs bad guy plot even makes the word cliche seems so overused and old.

Still, I thought the movie was entertaining and some moments were rather breathtaking, especially the time travel scenes themselves - seeing the Ice Age crushing in was really a thrill.

I am aware that the sixties version was quite different from the book, but I still think it is a much more enjoyable movie overall.

Wells, and a supposed remake of the 1960's movie, "The Time Machine" is the action packed story of a grief-stricken man, who invents a time machine in hopes of going backwards in time to erase the tragedy that has overtaken his life.

I found this move boring and without any charm of the original.

Plus the set-up was way, way too long.

Having just seen the movie, I will say that it is easliy one of the worst movies that I have ever seen (and as an avid movie buff, that is a lot of movies.

The plot was fairly true to Wells in spirit, except for the contrived ending with no scientific or even pseudo-scientific basis for the way jamming the machine produced a convenient time warp that wipes out the Morlocks.

It is much more mind-boggling and exciting.

"The Time Machine", if taken on its own considerable merits, is a diverting and entertaining film with high production values and laudable attention to craft.

I wanted to see more time traveling as well, because the scenery changes throughout the years were very intriguing and borderline eye-candy to a sci-fi fan.

Wells and what a shallow and boring movie.

As Alexander, Guy Pearce gives new definition to the `absent minded professor' character, and does it in a way that is unconvincing and with a presentation that is rather pretentious.

I give credit to whomever designed his makeup and wardrobe it is technically beautiful and visually stunning.

, well, so what - I've seen it done a million times now - and it's getting bloody boring !

Library "helper" a complete waste of time.

The first I want to say is that it is visually stunning!

This film was entertaining and enjoyable.

This movie is an engaging, plausible (given the premise of time travel) adaptation of the H.

You'll waste your time.

Just a weak Hollywood attempt to sex up a classic for the hope of entertaining the MUMMY-esque fans, I gather!

don't waste your time like I did...

I rented the old version for my kids and they enjoyed it for its concepts.

most unexpected delight great film .

See it if you have bored 10 year old children to entertain.

The one thing that makes THE TIME MACHINE worth watching at all is the quality of the special effects.

Predictable, but mildly entertaining...

This movie was entertaining.

However, the visuals are very hard to appreciate since you are constantly disturbed by the poor acting throughout the film, the truly uninspiring story and third rate dialogue.

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.

Worth watching for these and,of course,Samantha Mumba who makes the most of a grossly underwritten and underdeveloped part.

It's a listless, plodding, mumble of a film that gets so bogged down in special effects that it never comes close to capturing the adventurous spirit of the classic H.

So basically, I had a rockin' good time ;-) It's exciting, it's fun and, on the whole, quite impressively done.

It was very entertaining; I don't want to spoil the movie.

His worst movie to date is this.

However, the movie is still very entertaining, with many jokes, I especially liked the last one, and it is quite romantic.

It was entertaining and thought provacative.

But it was a wonderfully entertaining piece of science fiction, without a lot of blood and guts, killing, vaporizing, etc. Go see this film and be prepared for a most enjoyable visit into the fantasy that is H.

However the rest of the movie was really boring.

All over, I guess you could call it slightly entertaining.

" Any movie that is entertaining enough to finish (which I did), I figure is a 5 or 6.

However, like movie popcorn when it's over it does leave you feeling empty, unsatisfied and in search of something a bit more fulfilling.

); Jeremy Irons and the "heroic" (boring) final fight.

I found it a little hard to believe that so many New York City artifacts survived all those centuries (the Eloi use them to teach their children English), but I was willing to let it all slide because the movie was otherwise enjoyable.

flat and uninteresting!

Nonetheless, I enjoyed it.

A boring, predictable, cliché-ridden piece of junk.

Totally predictable, laughable, and so many plot holes I couldn't keep up with them.

I don't want to detract from the tremendous imagination he obviously had, what I mean by that is that reading what is really a short story, then adapting that into a feature length movie would be, well, a little boring.

Other than trying to keep my head from hitting my chest is boredom.

So bad, my wife fell asleep within 30 minutes.

A very enjoyable film.

The bad thing is that this movie stars very slow, and i mean "very slow", with Alexander and his girl and all that, and it turns really exciting like 1 hour later.

Worst movie I've seen in a long time...

This is a showy and entertaining story about an idea everyone has dreamed of: having power over time.

This version of "The Time Machine" was quite enjoyable with spectacular effects and wonderful performances by the cast, although I wish Jeremy Irons had had more screen time.

An entertaining film, with less suspension of belief then some films with time travel (remember Terminator 2?

The premise is fascinating, and the thought that Alex could have gone to any time is full of possibilities.

On my list of top 10 worst movies .

Enjoyed it so much more than the BORING, cheesy 1960 Pal version which film geeks consider so wonderful and I don't.

From beginning to end it was predictable.

I'm not going to ruin the improbable, boring, ending.

And what starts out as a horribly, horribly, horribly acted (even by the remarkable Guy Pearce, who is a great actor and has the resume to prove it), shot and executed beginning does become exciting once the hero jumps into the time machine for the first time.

Spoiler time, so only read on if you've seen it - or don't plan to, which is a fine idea, since this film is now 12 years old and the intervening years have spawned a number of other bombs on which you could waste an hour and a half of your life.

Welles ambiance in the original film - the turn of the century NYC scenes are slow and dull, thought this film flies by at 96 minutes.

Did it make me feel bored or irritated?

But still, it is quite an entertaining movie and I would score it an easy 7.5/10

Wells himself, which is what brought interest in me to what would otherwise be a sort of "ho hum, I'm not exactly rushing to the local theatre" affair.

It's an empty rush - great visual effects, poor character development .

It's like being on a most exciting roller-coaster only to have the last minutes of the ride do nothing more than drive you around at a slow pace.

The film clips off many exciting points that the first film didn't, such as World War II, and a volcano eruption.

Don't waste your Money.

Instead, it was really dumb stuff that happened, along with really slow action.

explains how Man became two races, but the scene is totally confusing, and at this point both Mr. Irons and the plot become superfluous.

The soppy, predictable romances both in present and future might have been concocted by Disney.

The only real successes are the sweeping score by Klaus Badelt, and the often stunning effects by the always-reliable ILM and Digital Domain.

Instead you have a fairly forgettable , bizarely uninteresting mish-mash of a rubbish film.

I walked out of the theater with so many unanswered questions, the primary one being, "If H.

The movie is an abomination of the original text, and an overall waste of time.

It's not a life changing, Oscar-worthy movie, but it is quite entertaining.

Kind of short in some places like scenes had been cut but the overall effect made it worthwhile-it was simply stunning!

Guy Pearce was terrible, Samantha Mumba was tasty [one redeeming grace] and it got more and more boring as it got more and more silly throughout and the Morlocks appeared.

In the original film, there is a slow build up, he slowly travels into the future stopping along the way to view World War One then again to see the nuclear destruction of the planet.

Save your money, save your time.

The movie storyline was boring, stupid and predictable.

Timetravelling is the most fascinating theme.

The time change sequences were believable and exciting.

The secrets of time travel will have been discovered, indulged in and rejected as boring before I see this spectacular disappointment and colossal waste of...

The visual effects are outstanding, the locations are great, the plot is really "mind blowing" (tell me about it, I've seen this movie like 30 times and there are some things that i still don't understand).

The story is one cliche after another, played as though the writers had never read anything about time travel (it's clear the writers never read Wells -- it's a joke that he's credited).

A rather bland attempt at a special effects movie .

The talented Guy Pearce is one of the few saving graces thatkeeps this movie from being painfully unwatchable at times.

but after a slow hour begins the senseless butchering and then the movie just ends.

When he goes into the future, the landscapes are just breathtaking.

Once he has arrived at his final destination, things become frankly quite boring and soporific, and the whole set looks like some kind of prehistoric adventure film - you almost forget that it was a time-travel film in the first place and time travel doesn't even enter into the script.

Apart from the special effects with the geological changes being the most impressive, what a waste of time the movie was.

It's absolutely fascinating!

By the way, another confusing part was the way it explained how humans evolved into two separate species caused just by the moon "falling out of the sky" even though the moon isn't in the sky!

Some sections of the film were good but as for the rest of the film,it just seemed kind of boring.

Worth Watching, Could Have Been Better .

A complete waste of TIME and MONEY.

A snowy 1900 night; friends invited for dinner; clocks ticking in a warm house; whimsical background music; this start of an engrossing adventure was the art of film making at its best.

I enjoyed the atmosphere throughout the first quarter to half of the movie, and then it went very far-fetched and uninteresting (to me).

Well, the beginning of the film started off slow, and Guy Pearce seemed a little out of place.

This exciting movie mingles noisy adventures , franctic action , a love story , drama , breathtaking special effects and it results to be very amusing .

Very Entertaining .

I totally didn't think it was all that bad, what action it did have was very good and exciting.

Complete waste of everybody's time .

The idea that the time traveler is motivated by the desire to change the past and trapped in a time paradox is an old sci-fi cliché.

Don't waste your time.

the contrast between the "now" (for him) and the "later" are mind blowing.

4) The leading lady in the 1960 version (Yvette Mimieux) played a part typically contrived and uninteresting.

Since the 80s, filmmakers always seem to turn the most mundane objects into souped up science fictional wonders.

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.

The climax was very exciting, and the resolution was moving.

even on video it's a terrible waste of time.

The story was contrived and I never got to the point where I cared about the characters at all.

Oh my god was this a waste of my precious time.

All in all, this film is worth watching, especially for those who are fans of the book.

Save your money, or better still just read the book.

Confusing Snooz-fest ** Spoilers** .

`The Time Machine' is definitely entertaining if you don't take it too seriously.

Don't waste your time paying to watch this movie.

This movie makes one want to leave the theater.


But it was compelling and dramatic.

overall you should take a look at this one it is entertaining.

Intriguing update of HG Wells' sci-fi classic novel with Pearce as a turn-of-the-century New York inventor/scientist whose eon skipping vehicle serves as the ultimate in What If scenarios as he tries to determine predestination and inevitable time frames limitations of the human spirit.

Welcome to another pointless Hollywood remake .

Similarly his relationships with his fiancé and friend are empty of feeling and emotion, and unfortunately one couldn't care less what happens to anyone in the film.

Wells had a time machine, would he travel to 2002 and boycott this empty adaptation?

Surely, Guy Pierce and Jeremy Iron - two fine actors with compelling performing talents - can't expect these to better their future acting career!

Visually amazing, and mind blowing but a little boring...

Some of the effects are good and the plot did have potential but the script and design never let this come out, seemingly more interested in visual bang-for-buck than they were about producing an effective and engaging story.

But here, everything is reduced to the banal concepts of Hollywood movies.

No story, rubbish action and direction and the worst monsters since the 50's.

A couple of people walked out of the cinema 'cause they got bored, I suppose.

Wells) picked the wrong man to play Alexander, who seems like a dull and boring professor who is played by a dull and boring actor.

An enjoyable little bit of escapism that will keep the kiddies in all of us amused for around 90 minutes with no ill effects.

For one, the time machine really looks like it would take you through time, the computer graphics are amazing when he's going to 802,701, and the whole Eloi civilization is breathtaking.

Still, this movie tells a good story and IMO is well worth watching.

Compared to a lot of movies made today in terms of science fiction this movie is at least enjoyable and the violence factor was kept to a minimum which is always a pleasant surprise since most adventure movies contain too much violence and not enough content.

After seeing the original I found it to be both extremely lame and somewhat slow and drowsy, so, After watching the original I wondered how well the remake could keep in the same story line(previding that mankind didn't destroy itself with nuclear war during the 60's as the old film suggested).

This was a feel good movie in a time (our time) of confusion, fear, and war.

Soundtrack and visual effects are remarkable - too bad they are wasted in service of a banal script.

(******Major Spoilers Contained******) Logically of course, there is the Jeremy Irons pointless villain.

This was a stunning visual achievement.

I was sort of forced to watch it, but in the end I really actually enjoyed it.

Utter waste of Time .

When Alexander decides to jump ahead again (originally, he decides to jump another hundred years), an explosion nearly throws him from his chair and forces him to slow down and stop in 2037, where the mining operation has more or less made the moon start to disintegrate as a result of the failed operation.

This is one of the most pointless, boring, hole-filled, wastes of time that I've ever seen!

I found this movie so enchanting and exciting, the special effects ` were mind blowing.

What i got, was an enjoyable adventure through time.

Compared to the book and 1960 version, this movie seems rather bland though.

It's unfortunate The Time Machine isn't all it could have been (these days, that seems to apply to most big-budget studio films), but it's nice to see an inspired and spirited sci-fi adventure that's entertaining.

This might be the worst movie I have ever seen.

Also, watching disasters happen to the Moon as a result of our excessive nuclear explosions there is a visually exciting moment.

The Time Machine is flat, useless, and tiresome.

While this 'remake' is well produced and reasonably acted, and the special effects and film score make it easily enjoyable, they should have given it a title that distanced itself from Wells' novel.


Also Mark Addy's last scene was great..Overall, movie loses most from having a overused storyline and confusing the audience.. What were those things?

On the plus side the movie is visually stunning, the machine, the travel sequences and the photonic librarian are all good.

" It has narration, it moves a little slower and it's all about discovery.

evil, and all around just so generally safe - which can be read as "mundane.

Don't waste your time (machine) or money .

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).

Some parts were a bit confusing and unnecessary (such as the blue guy) and the plot could've been better.

So the story is somewhat boring, it is the kind of film to watch ONCE and then never again!

He keeps the pace of the film quick and exciting, despite the somewhat lazy script he's following.

Despite the thin plot, what I found most enjoyable (apart from the special effects) were the clever touches here and there, far too numerous to mention.

It just feels utterly contrived, and tacked on for the sake of a wham-bam Hollywood finale.

As the first half hour or so in the start is rather amusing, the ending is rather quick and snappy.

Save the cost of a ticket & popcorn and go rent the DVD when it comes out (soon no doubt), at least you can fast-forward thought the dull parts, just like our time traveler.

Enjoyable Romp Through Time .

It sees Dr Alexander Hartdegen tormented by a pointless back-story, and driven to find a way of undoing the recent tragedy that only he cares about.

It was also made to make you feel like you should say wow after the movie is over but I felt empty.

The remake's story was ho-hum, the CGI Morlocks were lame, the Eloi were rastafarian to mimic today's fads (no I did not think the chick was hot at all), the re-killing of the hero's modern girlfriend was somewhat cruel, overall just a sad, bad remake.

The opening bit, without giving away the story, was compelling.

Up to said ending sequence, I essentially thought the movie "bad but cool"--an idea completely shattered by the trite and illogical finale.

It got confusing.

Too short, yet visually stunning...

Certain critics slandered this film by saying it was pointless.

Best actor/actress-Mark Addy To far out there for me i can buy the time travel but the rest was ridiculous-Jake Hyden I gave this movie a 4 out of 10 Rated-(PG-13) for intense sequences of action violence.

This debacle betrays all thought and soul of the original story, and settles for loud noise and uninspiring visuals.

Despite these educational shows being a positive influence on my life, I WAS BORED!

The effects and visuals are stunning, the acting is ok, and all technical stuff works.

This movie is hands down the worst movie of all time .

Taken in and of itself, it is a very enjoyable movie.

Very entertaining.

It was just a thrill ride of CG(computer graphics), and exciting instances piled on top of one another.

This movie was so disjointed and had so many story ideas running through it that you had to have a road map to find your way around.

The old cliché of a scientist dedicated to knowledge and discovery had been done to death and wisely they gave this scientist a personal reason to build a time machine.

I wish he travelled more and changed some events in the past, or see himself in the past, something more exciting.

But this version spent too much time with the unimportant dialogue, and too little time with the whole aspect of evolution, which was the most intriguing part of the novel.

Wells' original story had an excellent set up, a good, eccentric main character, a suspenseful storyline, and a poignant and still applicable social commentary.

)All in all, this is an empty, lifeless, dull, sterile and confused affair: didn't they ALREADY REMAKE "Planet of the Apes"???

Worst movie of the year.

Simon Well's has inherited his great grandfathers genious and updated it in a movie with breathtaking visuals, supurb acting, adn a message that is really great to think about.

Horrible movie that I wouldn't even waste my time on if I were you.

With so many films nowadays going over 2 hours--often way over--bringing in a coherent, exciting and satisfying story at 93 minutes is a commendable achievement in itself.

I forgive the film maker because the movie's so GORGEOUS to look at and the action sequences are very exciting.

The special effects when he dies were probably the most exciting of the movie.

Badly made and cliché-laden in every aspect, Time Machine is a waste of DreamWorks', and our, time and money.

The ending manages to be creepy, cool, exciting, and follow the book to a certain degree (the inside of the morlocks' cavern looks just as it should).

Especially enjoyable are his brief stops in the (for us 21th Century dwellers) near future years of 2030 & 2037 before hightailing it to the year 802,000.

This is a great sci-fi adventure story that was very enjoyable from start to finish.

And instead of seeing a good entertaining Sci-Fi/Fantasy film, I witnessed a complete mess of a movie.

Why do I feel so empty.

All in all a fun, enjoyable film to watch, and much better than a lot of movies that have been coming out lately that force the narrative, rather than letting the story unfold.

I just want to say this 2002 version features a story that is very true to the book, the cinematography is gorgeous, the acting perfect, the special effects breathtaking, and the score wonderful.

With the Pearce character, we are dragged along, hoping for an adventure.

A boring ending to what was an intriguing picture.

A pointless, flat, and useless reimagining....

I don't mind so much brain dead, big-budget, Hollywood factory films, as long as they are entertaining, or action packed or funny.

So entertaining .

It is also disadvantaged by bad pacing, so the film is rather dull too.

It was entertaining enough to watch once (maybe on a rainy day) and not nearly as painful as watching Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes.

The plot was terribly confusing and never made any sense.

It's no masterpiece, but there are some simply stunning pieces.

Overall, the film is a very enjoyable film which is very good as remakes go.

A few people will get mad that its a re-make of the original, which for some unknown reason is a crime, but it's still worth watching.

What it adds is pointless, genetic and makes the film feel rushed and unguided.

Well, we were hoping for an entertaining movie and for the most part, we got it.

This movie was so disjointed and had so many story ideas running through it that you had to have a road map to find your way around.

The special effects of time travel were visually stunning, one of the best parts of the movie.

) to avoid the unnamed, unexplained, and unexpected deux ex machina temporal explosion, light show, special effects bonanza he just created - which wipes out all signs of badness without touching any of the good guys.

Of course he is unable to right the wrong and instead winds up 800,000 years in the future.. Solid visual effects and entertaining action sequences keep things moving and Pearce is fine as the time traveler.. While the ending seems a tad too predictible and pat for my tastes, the ride is still fun along the way.

Similarly, the events that destroyed the earth prior to the final 800,000 years journey were changed from the normal global human war, another cliché, to a more realistic man made ecological disaster.

I found the time Machine to be entertaining enough, though it had to squeeze a lot into its "Time" frame.

And nothing happens for the entire middle section of the film.

Costumes and FX were just stunning.

Granted, the special effects are amazing as are the set design and sound effects, and Uber Morlock was intriguing.

The Time Machine is a nice 1 1/2 hour diversion from the real world that will be enjoyable as long as you don't expect it to be the next great adventure pic, or the groundbreaking work that the original Time Machine was.

If that sounds dull to you, worry not, because this is not a careful adaptation, it's Hollywood.

First let me say that I found a lot of theconcepts that this film dealt with to be fascinating - even though theywere executed by a director and screenwriter who should both be firedfor insulting an audience with there film student drop out idea of amov................

The script was immature and contrived and the directing was pretty lousy too.

Slow, boring, confusing wreck of a movie.

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!

I think it's fascinating to see what someone else thinks the year 800,000 will look like.


Flawed, but Definitely Entertaining .

Once in the far future, for instance, watch as a Columbia professor/bookworm becomes an action star fighting Morlocks, scaling walls and rousing the troops ala George C.

It's not going to be classic, but it's enjoyable .

Boring, lame and pedestrian.

Even the Morlocks in the 60's version, with their hokey makeup and grunts and groans were more entertaining than these gophers.

I felt the same disappointment with the two movies - the propaganda was very good - but I left the cinema feeling empty.

But the movie was exciting as all get-out.

I thought it was stunning and the musical score is what hit me.

* There is a duel between the good character and the evil one, obviously the good wins (so predictable).

It was far too exciting, visually stimulating and involving to fit that bill.

But what this movie achieved was making an entertaining and worthy of a watch, story.

"The Time Machine" may be the most moving, evocative and finely crafted piece that H.

Unexpected events upset Alex's plans and set him to work creating a time machine… and after four or five self-denying years of intensive labor, he succeeds.

it's so sad, so empty...

This was the worst movie of the year (was even worse than Domestic Disturbance, and I didn't think that was possible).

Also it is a rather poor adaptation of the book, with the story rather jumbled and anything that was so interesting and intriguing is diminished.

It looks good, no argument there, and it does manage to be exciting and entertaining some of the time.

It was probably too slow for the multiplex crowd, and too short as well.

I went to the Matinee so I only paid $5.75. Save your money and rent the old one.

The movie started off slow, focusing more upon the love between Alexander and his girlfriend (the character's name currently evades me and I cannot tell by looking at the cast list).

Now we are 800,000 years in the future, where the peaceful Eloi are being hunted by very dull puppet creatures.

Real exciting.

Please don't waste you money on this one.

waste of time and money .