I am always fascinated with the concept of time traveling and I thought Guy Pearce did an awesome job portraying this. Also it was funny how Alexander came up with the greatest invention of all time working with crap technology. He came to the future and that hologram just laughed at him.
I loved the film.
This film is definitely not a 8.0 or maybe even a 7.0 film but a 5.7(now) is pretty ridiculous.
Guy Pierce acted pretty well in it if you ask me, and the concept of the movie was pretty good.
I gave it an 8.0 , the acting was good the story was fine the music and effects were immersive , ive watched it around 4 times now and never feel like looking at my watch or turning it off , its not a record breaker or box office smash but i found it enjoyable.
The sciencey bit that others have complained about i ignore , its a film about time travel if you can accept that then everything that follows should be acceptable as long as it is cohesive.
[deleted]
The Clout of Gen my novel, deals with time travel and its influence on history, have a look at it if you like hidden messages & mysteries.
Found at
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/180216
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008J0BSZO
I liked the movie quite a bit when it first came out about 10 years ago, but I was much younger then as well. Looking back at it, I thought it had a great start and then got kind of cheesy towards the end. Think it deserves a better rating but can see why it scores rather low.
share[deleted]
its okay, but does not compare to the classic
"There's no cure, for being a *beep*
I think viewers rate with comparison to the original.
A remake is always condemned if you judge this way.
I too think it is underrated as the overall effort was very well done.
Music is extremely good, guy is very convincing and I also liked the effects very much.
I especially appreciated that cgi was only there were necessary and many beautiful scenes were prepared in detail although only necessary for a few takes.
Most of all, this version gets me thinking for our choices much more than the first one.
A good and honest 8 from me equal to the first.
I read the book yesterday and then watched the movie. Its a 1/10 or 2/10 movie for me. One of the worst book to movies adoptions I ever watched in my life.
shareThe climax of the movie was when he set his time machine to explode - causing a wave of "time energy" to conveniently destroy all of the bad guys but leave him and his girlfriend just enough time to escape.
And you call this good? Wrong!
Never argue with a fool - they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
I found this movie to be overflowing with hokum, and also full of scientific and factual errors. The fractured moon hanging in the sky? Idiotic; its gravity would pull it back together again. The inscriptions on the rocks being sharply carved and visible after 800,000 years? Carvings like that fade after a few centuries, and after 800,000 years would be sand. Plus the idea of the computer being fully operational after 800,000 years pushes suspension of disbelief to the limit.
Plus the Eloi speaking perfect English, the contrived reason for him inventing time travel (Why is it ALWAYS a lost love? Why? Why is EVERYTHING motivated by lost love?), the equally contrived love story in the future, the psuedophilosophical meanderings, etc.
Even on those terms, this was little more than a B movie. When you compare it to the novel, it's a trainwreck. Wells was very much a social satirist, and his novel pokes at the Victorian notion that they were the pinnacle of science and civilization by showing a world that had fallen into ruin and decay. It also turned the class system on its head, with the seeming haves (the Eloi, who live lives of pleasure and idleness in an Edenlike earth) and the seeming have-nots (the Morlocks, who live underground and tend vast machines that they no longer understand and that no longer serve a purpose) and turning them on its head, with the Haves being the cattle of the Have-Nots.
Read Wells with an eye toward satire and commentary, and you may be surprised. He was a Socialist and radical who thought little of Victorian attitudes and morals. WAR OF THE WORLDS pokes at Victorian complacency and assumptions of military superiority, for instance.
But this movie is a tired, third-rate rehash of familiar material, and it has the rating it deserves.
Facts need to come before certainty.