Before I begin, I should say that I wasn't really interested in seeing this movie. A few weeks ago, I kinda wanted to see it, but the closer it came to the release date, the less I wanted to see it. By the time it was released, I didn't wanna see it at all. The thing is, it had been an entire month since I'd seen a new movie (there's been a lotta crap being cranked outta Hollywood recently), and therefore, a month since I had a new movie review posted on my web site. This last month, as weeks went by where I wouldn't have a new movie review up, the hit count would decrease, and fewer people were going to my site. Typically, I get at least one new E-Mail a day from someone who went to my web site. This last week, I only got one. Just one E-mail in seven days from someone who went to my site. Fine, I can take a hint. So I saw "The Time Machine," not because I wanted to see it, but because it's obvious that when I don't have a new review up, I lose readers. I can't let that happen. So here's your new movie review.
Nothing in "The Time Machine" is very believable. Then again, it's rare for a movie about time travel to be believable. "The Time Machine" really pushes the suspension of disbelief envelope, though. But I can't be picky about what was envisioned for the distant future. How can someone envision what the world will be like 800,000 years from now?
I've never read the novel by H.G. Wells from which this movie is based, nor have I seen the original film version of the book from 1960 that was directed by George Pal, so I can't make any comparisons. The only thing I know is that from other reviews I've read, this movie is almost nothing like the novel. But maybe certain advances in science make many things in the book completely preposterous today. As unbelievable as the movie is, maybe if it was too similar to the book, it would be even more unbelievable. I have no idea. Like I said, I never read the book.
There are plenty of things wrong with this movie, but I liked it more than I thought I would, and I wasn't bored for a second. There's a lotta cool stuff to see. Visually, it's great. The special effects are daring, the kind I've never seen before, and it all looks pretty convincing. I especially like the time-lapse stuff. Very cool.
Though a movie like this isn't usually gonna be judged by the acting, Guy Pierce is great as "Alexander Hartdegen," the man who invents and uses the time machine. You may remember Guy Pierce as the star of the great movie "Memento." He was also the straight-laced detective in "L.A. Confidential" (which also starred Kevin Spacey and a then unknown Russell Crowe). The female lead in "The Time Machine" is Samantha Mumba, who I never heard of, but she's apparently a famous singer in Ireland. This is her feature film debut, and I guess she's pretty good, but her role wasn't a real tough one. Her character has a younger brother in the movie, and he's played by her real life brother Omero Mumba. He's okay, I guess, but he gets kinda annoying. Mark Addy (he was Heath Ledger's chubby sidekick in "A Knight's Tale," he played "Fred Flintstone" in "The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas," and he was one of the guys in "The Full Monty") plays Guy Pierce's best friend, and he's very good. There's a certain everyman quality that I like about Mark Addy. I also like Orlando Jones ("MadTV" alum... was great in "Office Space" and "The Replacements"... has been in a lotta those 7Up commercials) in this movie. His character, though nothing more than a computer as a humanized holographic image, ironically adds much-needed humanity to the film, and Orlando Jones does a good job of making his character sympathetic, despite not being truly human. Finally, there's Jeremy Irons. His role is essentially little more than a cameo, but he's very good. His performance is a vast improvement over his hammy, insanely over-the-top performance in the horrible "Dungeons & Dragons."
"The Time Machine" was directed by Simon Wells, who is actually the great-grandson of the man who wrote the novel "The Time Machine," H.G. Wells. This is the first time Simon Wells directs a live-action movie, but he has lots of experience in animated films. He directed "Balto," and helped direct "The Prince of Egypt" and "An American Tail: Fievel Goes West." I guess directing a live-action movie was too much for him, because towards the end of production, with only 18 days remaining, Gore Verbinski, the director of "Mouse Hunt" and "The Mexican," was brought in to take over because Simon Wells was suffering from "extreme exhaustion." Wells returned for post-production, but still, that's gotta suck, right? The screenplay was written by John Logan, who wrote the lame movie "Bats," the very good HBO TV-Movie, "RKO 281," and he helped write the overrated "Gladiator" and the underrated "Any Given Sunday." And as mentioned earlier, the movie is based on the novel "The Time Machine" by H.G. Wells.
"The Time Machine" is good, but not great. I think I'm being a lot nicer to it than most critics have been, though. You wanna know what's a great time travel movie that's somewhat related? "Time After Time." Ever heard of it? Wow, it's an awesome flick. It's about how "H.G. Wells" (as played by Malcolm McDowell, the star of the masterpiece, "A Clockwork Orange,") invents a time machine, but "Jack the Ripper" (as played by David Warner, who was "Evil Genius" in "Time Bandits," and he was in "Titanic" as "Spicer Lovejoy," Billy Zane's henchman) steals it to go to modern day San Francisco ("modern day" being the late 70s), so "H.G. Wells" goes after him. It's an excellent movie, one that I highly recommend. It was released in 1979, so it may seem dated, but trust me, it's still really, really good. It was written and directed by Nicholas Meyer (with "story by" credit going to Karl Alexander & Steve Hayes). "Star Trek" fans are probably familiar with Nicholas Meyer. He directed and helped write "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" and "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country." He also helped write "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home." It's important to note that he worked on the even numbered "Star Trek" films, which are widely considered to be the best ones. An interesting sidebar (at least, it's interesting to a geek like me), both stars of "Time After Time" would later be in "Star Trek" movies. Malcolm McDowell did the unthinkable in "Star Trek: Generations," and David Warner was in "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" as "St. John Talbot," and he was also in "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" as "Chancellor Gorkon."
"The Time Machine" isn't a movie to analyze, examine, and get nitpicky with. It's one of those movies where you just need to accept what's going on and enjoy it. Sure, it has flaws, but it's not a bad movie, and it has a lotta cool stuff to look at. And it's a lot better than that abortion "Hollow Man," which had a lotta cool stuff to look at, but it also suffered from an inexcusably awful script (written by Andrew Marlowe, who has yet to write a movie I liked even a little bit). But if "The Time Machine" isn't the kinda movie you're interested in, then go rent "Time After Time." Just don't rent it at Blockbuster. Blockbuster is evil.
Scale of 1-10: 7