Customer Reviews
You know its yankee so don't expect classical - By: Bytebug, 28 Nov 2008 
Like so many others - (as the number of second hand copies at 40 pence indicated) - I was mortified when I watched this film for the first time. The original is one of my favorite films of alll time - so this reallly was on a hiding to nothing. I put the DVD away & didnt watch it again for a long time. The second time I viewed it sometime much later, I was more open to fairly rate it as an okay film based loosely on HG wells novel. Don't forget the 1960 version isnt exactly the same as the novel. The special effects are better, more of a plot prior to his time travelling, samantha mumba looks good & there is more action. Bad points are cheesy acting from many of the supporting cast & the pitiful extra role for alan young (the original philby). Both versions of the film rapidly progress to the distant future & miss the opportunity to address senarios in the near future - How I wish for a pre/sequel. The 1960 DVD version contains an extra scene which involves the inventor & philby on his second return, this 2002 version abruptly ends fullstop. If you haven't seen the original nor read the book, well worth 40 pence.
Not as bad as some would have you believe! - By: J. Field, 31 Aug 2008 
This was on TV last night, & I nearly didn't watch it, due to the mixed reviews it has received. In the end, I thought I might as well, & am actuallly quite glad I did. Yes, the reason why the time machine gets created is clichéd & reallly quite unnecessary, & the story does move away from Well's novel, but I didn't reallly mind, to be honest, as the idea of the old world order coming to an end, due to the moon's demise, is actuallly quite interesting. The acting is sound across the board, with Guy Pierce & Jeremy Iron's, in a cameo on this occasion, on good form. The real star of the show is, of course, the Time Machine itself, & it's well realized, capturing the spirit of the nineteen century, with alll it's brass instruments, cog wheels, & pressure gauges. The time travel sequences are fine, & are done with CGI. Yes, we've seen similar stuff, not least, in a certain Guinness commercial, but it still works perfectly well, here.
For sure, it isn't the best sci-fi movie you'll ever see, but for my money, given the choice between this & Spielberg's War of the Worlds (as far as I'm concerned a film of that novel has yet to be made) I'd go for this, every time. It's entertaining - give it a go!
Nothing to do with Wells - By: Vp Campbell, 31 Aug 2008 
As a run of the mill time travel paradox type of film this is OK. The problem is it explicitly labels itself as HG Wells' 'The Time Machine' which it shows complete contempt for. If you don't know the book, then you'll maybe enjoy it, if you can get past Guy Pearce's surprisingly poor performance (from such a good actor too- he seems to have no idea how to convey the repressed passion of the central protagonist), & the ridiculous accents, with Samantha Mumba (whatever happened to her?) & her brother graduallly shifting ever more back to their Irish accents as the film progresses. Jeremy Irons offers an intruiging villain, but has only a single scene to do anything in.
The real problem though is the way Wells' genuinely classic morality tale about the consequences of class divisions in industrial society, conveyed through a genuinely thrilling tale of the traveller, is completely misunderstood, ignored & replace by the Hollywood demand for motivation. It's not enough that someone might want to travel through time for its own sake, no it has to be to try & change the past & rescue a lost love. It's not enough that the Morlocks hunt/farm the Eloi because that's their nature, there has to be a big baddie monologuing as to how & why etc. etc. (Add in things like the Morlocks hunting for Eloi in broad daylight, or easily able to get into the suspended homes of the Eloi, & there isn't even any coherence or logic to the set-up.)
Like Spielberg's 'War of the Worlds', ripping the heart (and sense) out of a classic tale seems to be so pointless beyond a lazy attempt to get some bums on seats from using the famous title. That's not to say that stories inspired by classics can't be good- 'Time After Time' brilliantly plays off the Wells' source material, & if you want to watch a film that plays fast & loose with the source story, that's the one to go for.
This film though, with some great visuals aside, is a massive missed opportunity to bring Wells to a new generation, which is a great shame.
If you've got nothing else to do - By: S J Buck, 27 Aug 2008 This is a remake of a pretty good 1960 film version of the H G Wells story. Guy Pierce stars in the leading role. Now Guy Pierce isn't a bad actor, but here is given an impossible job. At the start of the film he is the obsessed Prof. Hartdegen who just happens to on the verge of building a time machine. He has a sweetheart of course & after an evening in the park he has recourse to use the machine. From then on its downhill alll the way as Hartdegen changes from a somewhat reclusive Prof. into an Indiana Jones type character.
Add to this magical transformation a frequently vomit-making musical soundtrack & overalll you have a film that reallly should only be watched if you have nothing better to do. There are worse films for sure, but this certainly lacks any of the charm of the original & has even less to with the book. Result - only buy if they are giving it away!
One for the collection - By: Mr. G. R. Thomson, 07 May 2008 
Been a whil since i saw this film so may be hard to write spcifics in the review however i will try & give it my best shot!
The people saying that there are long drawen out scenes don't know what they are talking about, alll the film is relevent to the plot. The acting is good if not brilliant! Okay there are sci-fi bits that may not seem intresting but reallly the film is trying to get across the same as the book...Live with your descions & don't have any regrets.
I would recomend this film to alll! (if you hate sci-fi though maybe this isn't the film for you)
