When I see all the comments here I realise that you folks actually like this movie, and I'm surprised. Watched it till the end, but I could barely keep up the interest.
What's the fascination? I'm a trekkie and love the whole time travel business, but this movie's take on it was really lame.
Sorry, just my opinion. (4/10)
I'm a Trekkie myself, but having actually scene The Time Machine when it first came out in theaters, gives it special significance to me even now -- despite what could be construed as awful special effects by today's standards. If nothing else, Yvette Mimieux was one attractive actress.
Rest in peace, Roger Ebert. You were the best.
Ok, I can understand the nostalgia. But how do you feel about the movie today?
This is actually the third movie I've seen with Yvette in a two week period (only by chance, and due to an addition to TCM) and I agree, she is absolutely adorable!
I think the better question is what did you not like about it?
Those who are fans of the movie have already stated the various reasons in different threads. Sure there is nostalgia factor. But heck, some of us think it also had a pretty good story. Not to mention, it had good, imaginative effects involved. By comparison, the 2002 version is largely forgotten today, and that had the advantage of more modern technology.
Okey, why did I find it boring?
The story was very thin and the majority of the film was comprised of the lead sitting in his machine.
When he finally stopped at certain times, it was shown very quickly. No real elaboration of the time or his feelings about it.
The lead was a very boring character who I felt no sympathy for whatsoever.
Only thing that was somewhat fun was the "tubeless TV".
I didn´t like the newer "Time Machine" either, although Guy Pierce is a more captivating actor.
But that movie had the "go back and save my darling"-story which was somewhat interesting, something this "Time Machine" didn´t have.
I don´t know if that explains my lack of interest for this movie?
Actually, the majority of the time, Rod Taylor is not sitting on the machine, and especially toward the second half of the film.
The both times he did stop, in 1917 and in 1966 was to fit in the timeline of Filby's son, whom George only knew as a baby in 1899. It was like a pair of bookends, seeing him as a young man then later on as quite old. In in 1966, he did marvel at all of the change, but had to get out asap, because WWIII had just broken out, not to mention the ensuing volcanic deluge (and for which entombed him for centuries).
Rod Taylor did a good job on what was written for him. It is nothing Oscar worthy, but for a sci-fi, it was enough, and combined with some imaginative special effects, the movie turned out to be a winner (and George Pal’s highest grossing film).
But that movie had the "go back and save my darling"-story which was somewhat interesting, something this "Time Machine" didn�t have.
My... I´m very impressed by your analysis of the film, I almost feel like watching it again :) (I´m not being sarcastic).
You saw a lot more in the movie than I did. I took it at face value, you looked deeper. I´m not sure I have the time or interest to go back and watch it again with you eyes.
Perhaps a second viewing can help, but ultimately, it is no crime not to like a certain movie. Everything is subjective after all, and we all have that one film, that we didn’t much think of, eventhough it may differ from a majority of views.
shareIf TCM has another showing of it, I will watch it and... maybe I will change my opinion. In the meanwhile 4/10 (and "slightly boring") will be my review.
I will return if I get another viewing :)
It is nothing Oscar worthy, but for a sci-fi, it was enough,...
Each to their own. I loved this movie when I saw it fifty years ago and still do now. Especially Yvette, totally adorable
Oh gravity, thou art a heartless bitch!
Your prolly a young dude and used to lavish I L M special effects. The was all we had in 1960 and before. It put us in a fantasy world as did all these type of movies. Its just the generation gap.
Watch for a 1930s movie The Hurricane by John Ford. Most awesome special effects I have seen, considering when it was made.
Expectations have a lot to do with an opinion. Experience is another factor, and still age of the person stating the opinion. The Audience evolve or (revert) depending on your opinion. But an opinion also says something about the person who gives it. ( I love stating the obvious) Casablanca was not well received and was considered just another "B" movie, as was "It's a Wonderful Life" if I remember correctly. So over time, history is the ultimate opinion. When the time machine was made, think of the year, computers were monsters that took up whole warehouses and used paper cards called "Key punch cards" to input data, gas was 19 cents a gallon, and American coins were made of real silver. It was a movie that impacted all other Sci-Fi movies that were made after it on the subject of time travel. It raised production standards and helped open the door for big name stars to "risk" committing to a sci-fi project.
Yes by todays standards, it moves a little slower, the effects seem a little hokey, in its day it was a big movie and to students of movie production it is a must see. It was made eight years before the first Star Trek, nine years before the moon walk. To this day scientists are trying to figure out just what is "time". Even though Jules Verne wrote about time travel in the 1800's and the makers of "the time machine" honored his writings by building a machine with "Victorian" technology and doing a very respectable job in following his original story. Try reading the original time machine first then the movie might seem much different. Because the original was not made for tech savvy generation of 2014, it was made for readers who's parents fought world war II and owned black and white TV's, the adventurous listened to Elvis the Pelvis, drove convertibles, and did the twist. I leave you with a couple of blasts from the past you can google if you care too.
All very good posts here and very fair questions raised by the OP. I wouldn't begrudge anyone who doesn't like this film - it's clearly not for everyone, especially among modern audiences.
I like it a lot for the following reasons, among others:
*The opening sequence with the clocks is awesome, and directly inspired the opening sequence of Back to the Future.
*The scenes in 1899-1900 England are pretty well done: the set, the costumes, the acting. If - somehow - a Victorian man at that time had seriously invented a time machine, from there the conversations and acting are pretty well done by George, Filby and co.
*The film very cleverly inserts things that we know happened in WWI, WWII, and the threat of nuclear war into Wells's original story. I thought it did a pretty good job of this, taking what we know happened and blending it with an old story about time travel.
*The book itself is very philosophical. Not saying anyone has to agree with Wells or his social ideas, but his thoughts are worth pondering, and the book does a good job (with some interesting twists) as far as creating a screen adaptation. The film and the original story are very symbolic and are riddled with lots of statements about the nature of humans, time, the future, and questions and concerns. In it all, there is something of a commentary on the self-destructive ways of human that seem to perpetuate themselves if not get worse over time, and what the endgame of all that is ... as well as how there are those among us who remain idealistic and optimistic and seem ever hopeful in their attempts to make life better.
*There is something about the film that really hits me about how short life is, how fleeting and fragile it is, how things change. Look at the place you live, your surroundings. For many of us, certain things seem to be permanent, or the civilization we exist in seems like it's been around a long time and will be around a long time. And yet time marches on: forms change and pass, people come and go, buildings change, things are destroyed, even mountains rise and fall with time. There's a statement to be made there about just how short life is how things that seem so important to us or so everlasting or immutable are really pretty insignificant and puny when viewed in the larger scheme of things. One of my favorite scenes is when George explains to Weena where he's from, where his laboratory used to be, etc.
*On that note, the musical score is very good, in my opinion. It's at its best when it blends emotions that are nostalgic, heartbreaking, wistful and yet hopeful resolute all at the same time.
In addition to other replies here as to why this movie isn't boring, I'd add this. It has a certain atmosphere, emotional attraction, and warmth that more recent science fiction movies with their computerized special effects have missing. It's 19th century England where the notion of time travel is that much more fantastic. Although Star Trek stories are interesting, I don't find in them the kind of heart this movie has.
shareHave you watched and enjoyed any other films from the same era as this one was made?
shareIt's old and outdated today but I can still watch it and enjoy it, I like the take on the future. A group of carefree whoosee's and an ugly dominate race, sometimes it makes me think of the direction our country is going.
share I'm about to rewatch TTM probably for the 10th time and expect to enjoy it as much if not more than I did 50 years ago.
I assume you also find Forbidden Planet also boring.
This is how the species has devolved.
Morlock?
by ang-son » Sun Dec 29 2013 07:58:59
IMDb member since July 2004
When I see all the comments here I realise that you folks actually like this movie, and I'm surprised. Watched it till the end, but I could barely keep up the interest.
What's the fascination? I'm a trekkie and love the whole time travel business, but this movie's take on it was really lame.
Sorry, just my opinion. (4/10)