Jamie Kennedy's favorite movie review site
Home Reviews  Articles  Release Dates Coming Soon  DVD  Top 20s Criticwatch  Search
Public Forums  Festival Coverage  Contests About 

Overall Rating

Awesome: 9.73%
Worth A Look: 15.93%
Just Average: 9.73%
Pretty Crappy33.63%
Sucks: 30.97%

6 reviews, 77 user ratings

Latest Reviews

Nomadland by Rob Gonsalves

Stylist, The by Peter Sobczynski

Hidden Man by Jay Seaver

Writer's Odyssey, A by Jay Seaver

Endgame (2021) by Jay Seaver

Tom and Jerry by Peter Sobczynski

Stylist, The by Rob Gonsalves

Rumble Fish by Jack Sommersby

Saint Maud by Rob Gonsalves

One Night in Miami... by Rob Gonsalves

subscribe to this feed

Time Machine, The (2002)
[AllPosters.com] Buy posters from this movie
by Bishop

"I wish I had a Time Machine, I would go back and not see this movie!"
1 stars

The Time Machine, starring Guy Pearce coming off of his phenomenal role in Memento, is a hurried effort that keeps the audience's head moving side to side trying to follow the action...which isn't even worth following. This film which might have worked with better development and perhaps another hour is totally misguided and succeeds on few, if any levels.

The epic that was The Lord of the Rings showed how a famous literary epic can be wonderfully adapted to the big screen. If The Lord of the Rings is a "How To," The Time Machine is a "How Not To."
The movie starts off OK, as we are introduced to Guy Pearce's character, a college proferssor/scientist/physicist. As it turns out, a tragedy befalls Alexander Hardigan (Pearce's character) and he sets out to build a machine, a time machine to be exact, in order to alter the past. Well, Pearce succeeds...or there wouldn't be a movie right (damn it, why did he succeed)? This is where the mad dash to the past, to the future, the distant future, and the future of the future and so forth comes. In the future where Hardigan finally decides to stay a spell, he finds out much to his dismay that there are two distinct societies. One of a people who are somewhat civilized, and one of beastly neanderthals. The Eloi, with whom Hardigan stays are hunted by the Morlocks. Less than a teen pop sensation, Samantha Mumba plays the only English speaking Eloi, and suprisingly, she's not terrible. Anywhoo, Pearce decides to stay awhile and help the Eloi, all the while seeking to have the question which drove him into the future answered, i. e., "Why can't one change the past?" Pearce begins to stop obsessing, and is drawn into the struggle. What he finds is a terrifying reality, and an answer to his question.
Jesus, I hope the last paragraph didn't mislead anyone, because this movie sucks. It is so hurried and underdeveloped that one can only wonder if the filmmaker's didn't sap up all of their budget on special effects. This movie had some potential, but fails to realize it. What it needs is a more deliberate pace and more time to develop the sequences. The leaps and bounds Memento most assuredly produced for Pearce may have been diminshed substantially by a total mail-in performance, which is a shame because Pearce is so talented (L. A. Confidential, Memento). Pearce's performance could have been a somewhat redeeming aspect of this film, but it isn't. He's not bad, but he's not good either. A blaise mail-in of a performance. Jeremy Irons turns up late in the film, and does a decent, creepy job of portraying his character, but it is too late for redemption at that point. The Time Machine is a hurried bore.

I would strongly advise not seeing this movie, even on video. It is highly unenjoyable and is the worst movie I have seen in a theater in some time.

link directly to this review at https://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com/review.php?movie=4756&reviewer=289
originally posted: 04/06/02 18:48:23
[printer] printer-friendly format  

User Comments

4/24/18 Louise A waste of 'time' - ha ha - watch the 1960 one instead. 2 stars
9/13/17 morris campbell IT SUCKS 1 stars
8/18/15 Carol Watch the George Pal 1960 classic. Just pretend this pointless remake never happened. 1 stars
6/08/13 mike great movie 5 stars
1/15/11 L Lopez Awsome remake of an old favorite. Dislikers should have their DNA resequenced. 5 stars
8/28/08 Shaun Wallner This movie was Awesome!! Loved It. 5 stars
3/16/08 Kirsten Not bad, but I felt the plot was a bit rushed. Iron's character was defeated too quickly 3 stars
5/13/07 action movie fan lame remake-1960 moive is still the best 2 stars
1/27/07 David Pollastrini saw it but have no memory so it must have sucked 3 stars
9/12/06 BOB I understand why some people would not have liked this movie, because you have to think 5 stars
8/05/06 nicklor24 great film, to bad it's underrated, check it out 5 stars
7/13/06 Dan Honestly, what were you idiots expecting? This was a fun, entertaining movie. Dumbfucks. 4 stars
5/07/06 Thomas Semesky How can you make a movie about time travel into a boring waste of time? 2 stars
9/03/05 Eagle We need a time machine to go back and prevent this movie from being made 1 stars
8/18/05 ES A good re-telling, worth a glance 4 stars
8/06/04 Anthony G I would fuck samantha mumba 2 stars
5/31/04 ReptilesNi Completely lacking the charm of the original movie. 2 stars
5/21/04 Bruck Remembrance of a great film 3 stars
12/22/03 Chris It was an OK movie at first but the end was horrible. 2 stars
10/27/03 Lars Kelsen A great ride! 4 stars
10/19/03 Ingo Fine start, but then... 3 stars
6/09/03 Goofy Maxwell Don't see it, or if u must, pull a Rip Van Winkle like Guy Pierce & just sleep through it. 1 stars
5/31/03 Pete a hour and a half just to see Samantha Mumba's tummy. Sucks Ass like a intern 1 stars
4/23/03 LIAM JACKSON brilliant.the uber-morlock should have killed alex.still great though 5 stars
4/09/03 Jack Bourbon Hey! I forgot I saw this piece of dog shit. Too bad that had to change. 1 stars
1/19/03 Jim Not bad but suffers from severe credibility problems once Alex arrives in 802701. 4 stars
10/21/02 teri did the screenwriter just quit right at the end so quickly wrapped up the whole thing? 1 stars
10/05/02 syrius effects are pretty good, but H.G. Wells is rolling over in his grave 2 stars
9/01/02 AshFan Guy Pearce and the effects are great, but its' stupid script and ending ruin some of it. 3 stars
8/12/02 Monster W. Kung An utterly disappointing film. Damn you, Pearce. 2 stars
7/29/02 soelsen i thought it was good....kinda hard to follow though 4 stars
6/01/02 Chris Not a complete waste of time. What was with the ending it was pretty good till then. 3 stars
5/17/02 viking a sci-fi classic becomes a run of the mill CGI extravaganza 3 stars
4/29/02 Little L Absolutely loved it! Whoever says it doesn't live up to sixties one's standards is stupid 5 stars
4/26/02 Jill and Bart worst movie we've ever seen in our lives. BORING!!!! 1 stars
4/23/02 Danielle Ophelia Someone ate H.G. Wells' masterful novel...then chucked it back up. A maudlin surface-skim. 2 stars
4/22/02 Rautron Zero The 1960 Original is by far a better film, but this film s Interesting 3 stars
4/17/02 Emily shitty 1 stars
4/11/02 Aaron Nelson Pretty good remake of the 1960 Pal film, although the last 20 minutes lost it a bit 4 stars
4/10/02 emp not that bad, probably should wait for the video 4 stars
4/10/02 Kelly Mears The Special effects are cool. Plot is nothing special. 3 stars
4/09/02 The Grinch Good, mindless fun, with good special effects. 4 stars
4/07/02 Roy Smith Saw the "ending" far in advance, rather stupid, all FX only 2 stars
4/07/02 Connoisseur you people are too hard on movies these days. this movie is fun 4 stars
4/06/02 angie I enjoyed this film. Fine family entertainment. But then that's why I watch movies. 4 stars
4/04/02 Edfink Lombardo Good visual effects, fun storytelling, with its only downfall being its slow pace... 4 stars
4/03/02 Monster W. Kung ...and after going through it backwards, Guy Pearce wastes our time. 2 stars
4/01/02 Flick Chick cheezy and boring 2 stars
3/26/02 Chris żĄ Samantha Mumba and Guy Pierce have no character in this movie, at all. 2 stars
3/22/02 Larry You should to see it's not bad 4 stars
3/22/02 mahone the director should get the death penalty 1 stars
3/18/02 malcolm a lot of fun, jeremy irons looked like a wicked Powder 4 stars
3/17/02 your mom the visual effect were pretty good. 4 stars
3/16/02 Rampage Crud, crud and more crud. If you haven't seen it, thank God. 2 stars
3/16/02 R. Johnson Total, uninflected, piece of crap! 1 stars
3/16/02 H. G. Wells I can't believe they have talkies like this, who would've thought twas possible? 5 stars
3/15/02 Artist Freak Light on plot, but stuff blowed up real good. Don't expect great art and you'll be happy. 3 stars
3/14/02 bianca it was great. lot better than most people think 5 stars
3/13/02 NiceGlamourShotErik SUCKED BIG ONES 1 stars
3/13/02 Hotaine Ran right out and bought the book after this to cleanse my soul. I felt so dirty. 1 stars
3/12/02 ajay not as bad as HBS says it is. maybe that's why I liked it, I was expecting shit 4 stars
3/11/02 spaceworm Time trip cool; O. Jones,fun; Irons, NO! Scipt, where? 2 stars
3/11/02 raiven message to screenwriter: rent the 1960 version to see why yours sucks 2 stars
3/11/02 brent young superficial at best. maybe a rental... maybe. 2 stars
3/11/02 sandy I enjoyed this film. Fine family entertainment. But then that's why I watch movies. 5 stars
3/10/02 Rockitman007 I enjoyed this movie enough. 4 stars
3/10/02 Ziggy Stardust What claptrap! What drivell... i was hoping soo much for it to be good... but noooooooooooo 2 stars
3/10/02 Just another guy Nice effects, no story. Go rent the original. 1 stars
3/10/02 Jimbobwe Erik was dead on (except that this version is set in New York, not England). Way bummer... 2 stars
3/10/02 Benjamin Leatherman Ana llright movie. Everything seemed to make sense to me. 4 stars
3/09/02 ChicoJake maybe rent it if you are bored 2 stars
3/09/02 jojo great movie not to hollywood ,classic science fiction,and guy pearce as always is awesome 5 stars
3/09/02 Joe Deblow The Gayness Machine 1 stars
3/09/02 Kisuta A light, entertaining movie. Could have had a lot more detail. 4 stars
3/08/02 Butterbean Jeremy Iron's exposed spine was the coolest thing about this movie 3 stars
3/08/02 STEVE would not see it for a hundred bucks! 1 stars
Note: Duplicate, 'planted,' or other obviously improper comments
will be deleted at our discretion. So don't bother posting 'em. Thanks!
Your Name:
Your Comments:
Your Location: (state/province/country)
Your Rating:

Discuss this movie in our forum

  08-Mar-2002 (PG-13)



Home Reviews  Articles  Release Dates Coming Soon  DVD  Top 20s Criticwatch  Search
Public Forums  Festival Coverage  Contests About 
Privacy Policy | | HBS Inc. |   
All data and site design copyright 1997-2017, HBS Entertainment, Inc.
Search for
reviews features movie title writer/director/cast