User Reviews (477)

Add a Review

  • Based on some of the other comments I was expecting to hate this movie. I didn't, but I see why the reviews seem so negative. There are so many things to pick at, and no real bright spots to talk up.

    It really wasn't that bad. It wasn't great, but it's worth a rental. I'm not sure I would have felt I got my money's worth in the theater.

    I'm sure it was a tough chore to convert the original story to a 2-hour movie script. They had to take several liberties and condense quite a bit to do so. Unfortunately, that affected the flow and the movie ends up being a little choppy. How and why they go back in time is pretty well cut out of the movie and without any detail the believability is nil. The story boils down to a pretty standard chase and explosion thriller set in the middle ages.

    Definitely treat yourself to a read of the book the movie is based on. Like any book, the depth of characterization is so much more rich and interesting than what comes through in the movie. Once you get past the introductory technical jargon to set up the story it is a real page turner.
  • phoebes_jeebies7 March 2005
    I truly enjoyed this movie. It really isn't as bad as most of the reviews I've read make it out to be. It was not horrible or a waste of time. I rented it first and liked it so much I bought it. I'd recommend it for anyone who enjoys Sci-Fi movies for their entertainment value. I haven't read the book, so I can't make any comparisons. I think the whole story came together smoothly. Overall the acting was good, however Paul Walker would probably benefit from a few more classes. Gerard Butler was awesome in his role as Marek. I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot him in the future (no pun intended). I loved the beginning, the end, and everything in between. I give it a strong 8.
  • I rented this movie knowing that is it based on a Michael Crichton book. The Movie was somewhat entertaining if you could get past the acting. The sets and the costumes were done well and the battle scenes were plausible. However if you read the book there is so much more to explore with the characters and the action. This book was written so it could be a movie. Ten years down the road this should be remade for justice sake. A mini series on could be in order because of the additional scenes that would be needed. And no I am not naive, I know that in any adaptation sacrifices must be made but I feel that because they got a big name to play Chris the centered the movie around him when it is clearly better balanced in the book. I am not a book snob but I saw so much potential in this concept that I felt that the movie was unfinished. That is why I read the book. Judge for your self.
  • Sorry, the book had so much potential to be turned into an awesome film. But this low-budget crap with pathetic screenplay, well, kinda dishonored Crichton. All the book-to-film changes (Yes, all!) slowly destroyed the film. Paul walker looks fine like Chris but he cannot act; and Frances O'Connor is a fine actress but the role of Kate isn't for her. Gerard Butler on the other hand might be one good thing in the whole film. The multiverse-travel scene is a total disaster. The character development of the lead people, and also Doniger, is left behind which took away much taste from the story.

    Reading the book is more recommended.
  • So many important plot elements were left out, that the phrase 'sort of based on an idea by Michael Crichton' is the closest you can get to a relationship to the novel. The most glaring omission is the lack of the radio 'transceivers', which, if you've read the book, were involved in a major plot twist. And, they could have at least made SOME attempt to have the characters speak in 14th century (sounding) languages and used subtitles to give it a more authentic feel. On a positive note, the acting and casting were reasonably good. The action/fighting sequences were done well.

    Overall, the movie gave me the feeling that, as so often happens, the producers used the phrase "no one will notice" way too often during meetings.
  • This is a truly awful adaptation of Michael Crichton's novel Timeline. The book itself is not as strong as Jurassic Park or Prey; it reads like an overenthusiastic action thriller movie, which is a bit shallow for a book, but should make a great basis for an overenthusiastic action thriller movie.

    The movie is rushed, shallow, poorly acted, almost totally dis-joined from the story of the book, and whereas the book stretches credibility at times, the movie totally crushes suspension of disbelief.

    Crichton's book has well fleshed out, if somewhat annoying characters, more-or-less believable relationships, solid pseudo-physics, solid pseudo-history and at its core a good 'what-if?' story. There are enough extraneous bits to the story to allow it to be pared down to a good 2-hr movie without damaging the basic story or premise.

    The movie plays like a high school theatresports troupe ad-libbing their way through Hamlet having read the play once. And the sets aren't much better. It completely misses many of Crichton's best points, and is thoroughly ham-fisted with the few plot elements it retains.

    I wasn't expecting a masterpiece, but this was painful.
  • There's a reason why time travel has remained a staple of science-fiction for more than a century - human beings will always be curious about the past as well as the future. To be able to fix past mistakes with the advantage of hindsight or to know what to expect in the years to come are basic human desires common to everyone.

    The producers of "Timeline" may have benefited from owning a time machine. If they had taken a ride in Marty McFly's DeLorean they might have been able to prevent the mistakes in casting and scripting and made something that lives up to the idea's potential.

    An archeological team led by Professor Edward Johnston (Billy Connolly) is excavating the ruins of Castlegard, site of a medieval battle between the French and the British during the Hundred Year War. Johnston's son Chris (Paul Walker) is visiting, a man not interested in the past but in getting closer to his father's assistant Kate Erikson (Frances O'Connor).

    Trouble arises when Professor Johnston goes to his benefactor, the International Technology Corporation, to get more funds and information about why they are so interested in Castlegard. When he does not return Chris, accompanied with Kate, historian and medieval weapons expert Andre Marek (Gerard Butler), physics expert Dave Stern (Ethan Embry) and Francois (Rossif Sutherland) head to the company headquarters to figure out where Johnston has gone.

    It seems ITC, lead by Robert Doniger (David Thewlis), has stumbled onto a worm hole that leads back to 1357 while trying to perfect teleportation. Professor Johnston went back to see the era first-hand but got stuck there, and now his students must go back to rescue him. However, there's a catch, the group must collect him in six hours, otherwise they'll be stuck in the 14th century forever.

    The movie could have been great had the filmmakers taken more time to examine its premise, but as it stands the plot is just mechanical. Once in the past the group just goes from one incident to another in a single-minded goal of rescuing Johnston.

    There is no moment of wonder at the medieval world or any insights that looking into the past might reveal to 21st century travelers throughout the film. The visitors' knowledge of the area and upcoming battle do indeed come in handy, but they use this information only to survive and not to learn anything worthwhile.

    The movie certainly looks good, with some fine attention to period details. The clothing and buildings look authentic, though the people inhabiting them are a bit cleaner then they would have been. The siege on the castle is also well filmed with trebuchets and catapults launching flaming bombs at Castlegard.

    However, for a movie about survival and battle, everything is handled apathetically. The characters seem to be going through the motions when delivering their lines and there isn't much tension in the fight scenes. It adds up to a boring action movie, and boring is one thing an action movie should never be.

    It's also funny to see a film so selective about being authentic, such as making it a point that modern people should not carry modern equipment with them to influence history, but having medieval characters speak modern versions of English and French. It's also a strange that the movie takes sides, portraying the English as evil tyrannts and the French as noble defenders of their home. In reality, both sides were ruthless during that era.

    As an actor, Walker comes off as a poor man's Keanu Reeves. You read that right - Walker makes Reeves look like a nuanced performer by comparison. He shouts lines with little conviction and acts like a dork through most of the film.

    In fact, with the exception or Butler's Marek, it seems like amateur night in the acting department. A scene where O'Connors' Kate breaks down crying will have people laughing. Even Embry, normally an okay actor, gives an unmoving performance. His character stays behind in the present and comes off as the "self-righteous scientist" who squares off against Thewlis' heartless business man, a typical feature of this movie type.

    Director Richard Donner once made great movies like "Superman" and "Lethal Weapon" but can't rescue this mess. It's been five years since he's done a movie, and he seems rusty. The camerawork and set design are both excellent though, and belong in a better movie.

    Like most stories by Michael Crichton, "Timeline" makes scientists into noble humanitarians and corporate heads into greedy slime to create artificial drama, and it comes off as exploitive pabulum that detracts from where the attention should be, on the action.

    Since the action isn't good, what's left is a story where the heroes cry, complain and act selfishly while the movie tries to convince us that they're intriguing characters we should care about. "Timeline" is a wholly forgettable experience, and memories of the movie will be teleported out of the minds of the audience not long after leaving the theater.

    Five out of ten stars. Just stick to the "Lethal Weapon" series Mr. Donner, and Mr. Crichton, please exhibit caution before letting another one of your novels be ruined with a horrible on screen versions (but then, you haven't had a good reputation of doing that).
  • TimeLine the book is probably one of my most favourite books. I have read it countless times and have enjoyed it every single time. So I was very happy when I saw a preview a long while back that there was going to be a movie about the book.

    I wish that when people decided to make a movie out of a book they would make the movie just like the book. Don't change the plot, don't change the characters or their relationships, just leave it intact. They never do. I have been disappointed every time a book that I enjoy has been brought to the screen. I really don't know why I keep getting excited.

    Ok, I understand somewhat that you can't re-create everything from a book. It just wouldn't be feasible. But they changed entire genders of people, removed some more interesting moments, changed character relationships slightly, and totally bombed at all the stuff dealing with the ITC, time travel and the vileness of both bad guys.

    If you have read the book and seen the movie, you know what I am talking about. Some of the more exciting parts of the book were just not in the movie, like the struggle between the crazed man at the chapel, the fight at the mill and the entire tournament.

    I mean I was confused with the whole thing. One of Donnigers right hand men is supposed to be a woman, Chris is NOT the professors son (in the book he is father figure), the French guy that gets killed in the movie does not exist in the book, Marek is supposed to be fluent in all aspects of time period including the languages.

    I could go on about all the differences between the book and the movie, but there is no point. I would have to use up an entire screen just to point them out. It was a interesting movie if you had NOT read the book. However, if you have read the book and enjoyed it, a lot of great stuff was left out or warped into something different. I would say that the movie is very loosely based on the book, VERY loosely.

    Overall I say I was disappointed. I did enjoy Gerard Butler as Marek, Ethan Embry as David Stern and Paul Walker as Chris. The females leads (Frances O'Connor as Kate and Anna Friel as Lady Claire) could have been better. And I suppose Billy Connoly did an ok job as the professor, although I just didn't quite believe that he was a professor for some reason.

    I think I'll go re-read the book.
  • This is the worst movie-from-book that I've ever seen! While they did a pretty good job filming Jurassic Park, the seriously messed up with Timeline (same author). So, I would suggest you watch this movie before you read the book, otherwise the lack of "fanta-realism" and the differences between book & movie will be too irritating.

    Some people blame the fact that you have to put a 300 pages book into a 2 hour film, but Jurassic Park did fine and, thou the theme is totally different, the writing / plot style is pretty the same. It would be acceptable if the techniques used in the book would be taken seriously! I mean, replacing the whole quantum physics idea with a simple "wormhole that can only be found by accident"? Oh please! In the book they tested everything for a dozen times and they had like 3 versions of the machine! There even was a backup plan! So besides this lack of believable technology, you have the "history plot"... English soldiers that start chasing 5 peasants in a crowd of like 500 peasants with this reason "Hey, why aren't you packing yet?".

    + What's with the language? Everyone in the movie is capable of speaking both English and french... except the main characters! Somehow they only understand English. Even the "pure french people" seem to be able to understand English :p Why didn't they do some research (why research, it's all in the book) on the languages? Why didn't they at least try to simulate some kind of medieval scene? This one is definitely one for my "worst movies ever" list.

    But, don't get me wrong! The books is extremely strong! Read it!

    (sorry for bad English but my native language is dutch...)
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I watched this movie after seeing Gerard Butler in "The Phantom of the Opera" which left me wanting to see more of his work. I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. It is definitely not the type of movie that I normally would choose for myself, but withing a week of getting it I had watched it three times! I thought the plot was interesting. To find something from someone you know in the present and know that it is over 600 years old and then discovering that he is stranded in an earlier time is very intriguing. There were a few things that bothered me. For example, how in the world could people from the 14th century understand 20th century English and vice versa? I was also bothered by the fact that at the beginning they talk about how Lady Claire's death inspired the french to win the battle, but since they changed it in the past shouldn't they already know that she doesn't die? Supposedly the book does a better job of explaining it and so I must read it sometime. Overall, I really enjoyed the movie. It was very well acted and the plot line while unbelievable was still enjoyable.
  • An archaeological outfit formed by young students (Paul Walker, Frances O'Connor , Gerard Butler and others) using a time machine go back to ¨100 years war¨ where starring's father (Billy Connolly) before had gone and lost .

    The protagonist group will have to confront deal of dangers and adventures and will fight between English and French army . As a group of medieval re-enactors were used for soldiers in battle sequences . The crew of the movie visited various European castles from around that period , the late 1300s , to make the castles and towns look as realistic as possible.

    The runtime film is adjusted about hundred minutes and for that reason isn't boring , neither tiring . The movie blends action , historical events , suspense , medieval battles and is enough amusing . The picture didn't fail at the box office but wasn't a real success either . From the start until the ending the action and the fast-moving is continued but there is a wrong pace . The picture is partially based on historical events ; however , the battle of Castlegard is not an actual historical deed . Very good cast such as Gerard Butler , though Pierce Brosnan turned down the role of Andre Marek ; in addition , Paul Walker , David Tweliss , Anna Friel and a beautiful Frances O'Connor .

    Brian Tyler's musical score is outstanding and nice cinematography by expert cameraman Caleb Deschanel . Direction by Richard Donner is average , in spite of a lot of good films he has directed . The picture will appeal historical period buffs and battles lovers . Rating 5,5 /10 , mediocre .
  • I've read time line twice and its amazing. i don't understand how the film could have such poor production,the effects and sets were terrible! on its own its a poor film but if you've read the book its Even worse. i don't think the people who made it had ever read the book as the story is not right, so much of the plot was left out or ignored. Also the character relationships are often wrong (for example between Chris and prof Johnston) and there are extra characters (who is Francois dontelle?). there are also two female characters in the book which are for some reason male in the film (Steven Kramer is meant to be Diane Kramer, jimmy Gomez is also a woman in the book! worst of all they changed the ending! i waited 6 months to see this film and it was terrible, if your not going do something properly don't do it!!!! Also id like to suggest the makers read the book!!! they may relies what a crap film they made.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Timeline is one of my favorite books. After seeing the reviews on IMDb about the movie, I was hesitant to watch it. However, I have to ask- did the other reviewers even READ the book?? Lets be honest people- it's almost impossible to make a movie that follows the book exactly, word for word. It would be a 12 hour film! In my opinion, and this is stated from someone who has read the book numerous times, the movie Timeline does a good job picking up the highlights of the book, keeping as close to possible to the original story. Some of the mumbo-jumbo technical stuff is glossed over in the film, and I praise the screenwriters for that, as adding it would have made a confusing, boring mess to the movie. One of the greatest parts about Hollywood is the use of creative license. Yes, the film uses this during spots, but NOT enough to detract from the book plot. Yes,the acting is definitely not the greatest (with maybe the exception of Matt Craven), but again, NOT enough to detract from the book plot. This film takes what the readers loved about the book and changes very little. I could easily correlate the two. And I challenge the negative reviewers to find me a movie that doesn't change some parts of the book it is based upon. If you like the book, give the movie a chance.
  • As some of you might have noticed, the big crux of this film is the Michael Crichton novel it was based on. The book "Timeline" (or "Tijdlijn" in Dutch) is a very entertaining novel about the concept of traveling through time and a large company known as ITC trying to make money out of it. It packs a lot of action and tries to explain the issues surrounding time travel well enough. So anyone who read the book and liked it... SHOULD STAY THE HECK AWAY from this movie, because there's a big chance it turns out as a big disappointment.

    Why? Because the movie tries to simplify the plot and put a big emphasis on action. Away with the part about ITC working on a way ter commercialize time travel. Let's just say they erm... discovered it by accident! Also throw out that part about speaking Old English and Aquitanian language in the 14th Century. Let's just say they all speak fluently English and/or French. In the book the only persons who could literally understand the people in 1357 were Marek and Edward Jones. The others had to use a special earpiece with a translator inside. But that's too difficult, so let's throw in someone else who DOES speak French. Oh and that storyline surrounding Lady Claire is much too complicated. Let's cut out Guy de Malagant (who tries to marry her in the book) and just make her Arnaut's sister. And whatever you do, don't let Chris get too close to her (in the book it was Chris who met Lady Claire first and falls in love with her, but she liked Marek more)

    Then the characters: the talents of Billy Connolly (Edward Jones), David Thewlis (Robert Doniger) and Frances O'Connor (Kate Ericson) are totally wasted. And I refuse ter comment on Paul "2 Fast 2 Bloody Furious" Walker as Chris Johnston. Nondedju, what a bloody plank of an actor he is! I'm more satisfied with Gerard Butler as André Marek, although I didn't like the fact his nationality was changed (Marek was a Dutchman in the book). Also doing a good job more or less were Marton Csokas and Anna Friel. Friel is looking very good as Lady Claire and Csokas has far too less screen time to properly portray Robert De Kere (or Rob Deckard as called in the book).

    Simplifying the plot of the book ter make it look good on screen actually made this film look bad. It might offer some entertainment if you never heard of the book, but if you read the book, then don't go see this movie!

    Rating: 2/10 (It was pretty terrible)

    --------------------------------------------

    The Path chosen is never a trampled Road
  • Warning: Spoilers
    *SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT*

    You ever get that sinking feeling? That "not so fresh" feeling? You know, that feeling that washes over you about halfway through a mediocre movie? That feeling of unnamable dread that tells you nothing interesting is going to happen for the rest of the flick? That the movie has peaked in the first twenty minutes? I hate that feeling. That is what you will feel if you go see "Timeline".

    A professor gets stuck back in time. His students hop in a hall of mirrors time machine to go and get him. They land in the middle of a war between the English and the French. Knight's attack, catapults catapult, and arrows fly through the air. Adventure, excitement etc.

    The big question with "Timeline" is this: Why? Why was this movie made? What was the point? The time travel angle is completely meaningless. The filmmakers don't do one interesting thing with it. The time travel effects were non-existent as well. Couldn't they have at least shown some vague interest in visualizing what would happen to a human body if you "faxed" it through a wormhole? No, that would have required imagination. "Timeline" will have none of that.

    I would go 5/10 on this one. The good news is that there is a large battle scene at the end which saves the movie. As a medieval battle movie, it's decent. But as a time travel adventure, it's pointless. It had no interesting ideas at all.

    I mean, couldn't a knight have picked up a medallion and been zapped into the future? Couldn't the students have brought an Uzi with them to slay many knights? Anything? Hello? Yes? No? Does anybody care?
  • cazg20 November 2007
    This movie sucked so bad. The director apparently phoned in his job. I read the book twice and could not wait to see this pile of crap. The production was terrible. The action scenes were done at night which is always a giveaway that the director is pocketing money.

    There were so many plot points missed that it is not easily followed. The relationships between characters are changed for what seems like no good reason. The ending has been changed again for no good reason, except maybe to save money (again).

    The only comparable movie to this disaster is DreamCatcher, but thats another story! Its been 3 years and I hope this movie never sees the light of day again.

    Read the book!
  • I try not to be too influenced by what movie critics write about the new releases but probably do listen more than i will admit to. However, i still rented out this movie, thinking that being based on a Michael Crichton novel, it cannot be that bad. But here is one movie that deserves its awful reputation. Is it the horrible horrible acting? Is it the historical inaccuracies? Is it the gaping holes in the very predictable plot? Well yes. Pretty much. All of these reasons make Timeline an often hilarious yet ultimately dreadful viewing experience.

    The plot centres around the transportation of an archaeology professor (Billy Connelly) back to 1357, during the middle of the England/France 100yr war. It is down to his team of younger excavators and his unenthusiastic son, Chris (Paul Walker) to go back and bring him home.

    Frances o connor, as the Professor's assistant Kate, in particular stands out for one of the most hammy and immature female portrayals i have ever seen. You want to try and blame it on the script but even that cannot be excused for her over-dramatic and pi55 poor performance that makes Paul Walker appear to be Oscar worthy, which of course he isn't. I would suggest that if Walker does want to be taken seriously as an actor, which he has stated more than once in many interviews, he would be best to choose his films a lot more carefully. Here, he does not prove that he can handle leading a film. In fact, he himself seems embarrassed, pulling all kinds of faces as he hides behind the other characters in the shadows.

    Anna Friel is yet another woefully miscast actress, who takes the role of French Lady Claire. Now, maybe it is because i grew up watching her as lipstick lesbian Beth Jordache in Liverpool soap Brookside, but as a french graduate, i certainly am able to say that her accent is pitiful and incredibly stereotypical. Maybe, to make it easier for her to grasp, they only give her a few basic lines in French such as "allez, Allez" and then suddenly her knowledge of the English language suddenly improves tenfold and her accent comes and goes in spasms. Why oh why can the producers not hire authentically French actors. Most of them speak better English than the Brits do French. Added to this the complexities in the development of the British and French language and we have many horrible historical inaccuracies. They simply did not speak the same language that is spoken today.

    I am not even goosing to mention Billy Connelly's humiliating role as an incompetent and dawdling professor that surely ranks as his personal career low. It is enough to say that this film is pure trash and to watch it would be depriving yourselves of 2 hours when you could be putting out rubbish, poking your eye out with a needle or fantasising over Martina NAvratilova.
  • I've never felt the need to write one of these reviews but I feel the need to save others from my fate. I read the book a few months ago and enjoyed it as much as any other Crichton book. I was interested but not too surprised that they made a movie about it and was intrigued by the possibilities so I rented it to see what they had done with the book. They did not do well. Do NOT watch this movie. You cannot get the wasted hours back. They decided to take out all of the interesting parts of the book and, even worse, they used that terrible actor from the Fast and the Furious movies. Not only can he not act, but he certainly can't pull off the even minor emotional changes necessary for the role. I emplore you, find something else to watch and if you feel the need to hear the story, read the book, it doesn't take any longer than the movie, but it, at least, is worthwhile.
  • mchieb25 April 2004
    8/10
    Sweet
    I actually liked this... It wasn't a 10/10 but I found this to be a romantic/action movie with some comedy and of course fantasy.

    There was no swearing, no nudity, and the violence that was in the movie was left to the imagination as they didn't show the body.

    I wouldn't of paid to see this in the theater but it was pretty good for a weekend rental on video or dvd...

    I would probably let my children (ages 6+) watch this...as I found it a nice clean family movie and quite enjoyable. I loved the ending...it was sad in a way, but I could understand why Andre did what he did at the end.
  • This is purely diverting entertainment. The movie does not capture all of the intricacies of the novel, but it stands on its own two feet as an enjoyable escape. No doubt it does not engender the ruminations on lost time that you will find in, say, the writings of Marcel Proust, but that's just fine. If you've ever wondered what it would be like to be transferred to the middle ages, enjoy the experience vicariously through this movie. If you've never had those fantasies, even the cinematic adaptation of Proust's collected works won't help you. The story provides enough twists to keep it from becoming a simplistic collage of battle scenes, and visually the movie is a treat of scenery and color.
  • Oh my god. This film is terrible. It's so bad that even giving it my time to describe how bad it is is really a huge and unnecessary waste of my time. Just about everything that can be bad about this film is... starting with the truly abysmal screenplay adaptation from the book, gruesome directing from Donner (how did he ever make Lethal Weapon on this evidence?!), awful awful ham acting from just about everyone but Butler, and a dismal clichéd score that almost made me asphyxiate myself with the remote control in order to make it stop.

    $80m? Please someone tell me it's not true. A truly terrifying example of what happens when the studio are determined to make a cookie cutter that they think will make a few quid. Thank god it tanked, let's pray it taught a few people to actually read the screenplay before they make the film next time.
  • If you are looking for the ride of your life, hold on and prepare to be faxed back to Castleguard in 1357 France at the height of the English invasion. High action and drama ensus as a group of archeology students fronted American heart-throb Paul Walker, have to travel back in time to save Pauls father from being stuck in 1357 forever. Joining the team on this ride is Gerald Butler, the Scottish cutie who first melted hearts as the Badass Dracula in Dracula 2000, and then did another number on our souls when he teamed up with Angelina Jolie for Tomb Raider 2. This movie is one thrill fest, that will leave you wishing Time Travel was possible. If you are fan of History, and even if you are not, you will have a blast. As someone who loves History and archeology this movie was something out of a dream, getting to do what they got to do. I'm not going to say too much more as I don't want to spoil the movie for anyone, but believe me when I say this you will love this movie. This movie is one of a kind!!!
  • I must admit, Paul Walker being listed as a lead did rather turn me off from this movie. As far as I can tell, he's almost Keanu Reeves caliber in terms of being chosen solely for looks and not for any ability whatsoever. However, my intense respect for Gerard Butler's little recognized talent, and having nothing to do, led me to renting this movie tonight. I must say, I had a good time. The plot wasn't really followed through in many points, and there were a few really glaringly off moments. But it was fun. And that's what it was meant to be, fun. So as long as you keep in mind that this movie is not up there to win any academy award's and just relax in the entertainment potential in has, you'll have a great time. However, Paul Walker is still nothing more than an attractive face.
  • I'm not a big fan of Michael Chrichton, oh I know this will get me hit with titles of books, movies and TV shows and "what about this one" pleas, but something always sticks in my throat about him. He wrote Westworld, the story of a pleasure park where the man made attractions go wild and rebel against their human captors. Do I have to go on? Sounds like the sequel, and the Jurassic Park movies? Sure he's done different things since, but that really stuck with me and bugged me to the point of not watching his movies or reading his books.

    It would be great at this point to say I've been turned since watching this movie, but I can't. Not that the movie is the same story, there are similar moralities to it, but that it's not that great. The story is clumsy and character decisions are weak, a large part of it is very much stock plot and whatever could be deemed as new and inventive just seems to plod along and doesn't really have the depth to it.

    What I did like was the editing. Skipping back and forth between the times was well done, and just at the right moments to add tension, but everything just seemed destined to happen. When you should have been sitting wondering what they were going to do and how, you already knew or had a fair idea, and it just seemed to happen.

    The big battle scene was incredibly well done, and along with the sound editing made for some mighty seat leaping moments. Yet I keep coming back to the bad points, and I can't get past them.

    Billy Connolly was awful in this, and that's strange because he's been so good in other movies. Some of the other casting was flat and uninspiring, with Neal McDonough playing the same character he did in Boomtown. However, Gerard Butler was good, and I'm not just saying that, he was. Well, he made the best of what he had. His screaming line at the end of the battle with his realisation of the obvious (what we had known since the beginning) was a laugh and seemed very heartfelt.
  • This film is one of the worst book to movie adaptations of all time. In fact, all of Michael Crichton's books since Jurassic Park was a smash hit have been sub par to downright awful and this is no exception. First of all, the book is not one of his best, although the plot actually makes sense in the book. In less than five minutes, the entire "explanation" for how this time travel is possible is explained. However, the scientific explanation which takes several pages in the book to describe, and is reasonable if not far-fetched isn't used at all. The acting is also dreadful with one very notable exception. Gerrard Butler is fantastic (or as fantastic as he can be with this script). Even though the film itself deserves a 1 (or negative 7, but I can't seem to put that in). His attempt to save the film by actually acting forced me to give it a two. Don't bother seeing the film, but look for Butler in other things that have such crutial elements as a plot, acting and a script.
An error has occured. Please try again.