The Time Machine (2002) Other movies recommended for you
The Time Machine(in Hollywood Movies) The Time Machine (2002) - Download Movie for mobile in best quality 3gp and mp4 format. Also stream The Time Machine on your mobile, tablets and ipads
Plot: Based on the classic sci-fi novel by H.G. Wells, scientist and inventor, Alexander Hartdegen, is determined to prove that time travel is possible. His determination is turned to desperation by a personal tragedy that now drives him to want to change the past. Testing his theories with a time machine of his own invention, Hartdegen is hurtled 800,000 years into the future, where he discovers that mankind has divided into the hunter - and the hunted. Runtime: 96 mins Release Date: 07 Mar 2002
I have just recently seen this movie and enjoyed it very much. I had seen the older one a few years back in school and have read the book at least twice. The modernization of the past movie and book makes this movie very enjoyable, especially if you have seen the old version and/or read the book. I highly recommend this movie to everyone. The movie and other versions of it, I feel, should all be seen. This is because I found it very intriguing seeing the advancement from how the world was when H.G. Wells wrote the novel to the movie that was made years later. The movie made in 2002 enhances <more>
H.G. Wells version and the version in 1960. When H.G. Wells wrote the novel he didn't know anything about space travel and computers. Incorporating these ideas in the newer version makes the movie spectacular.
Remakes have been attempted many times in the attempt to capitalize off an idea twice. Most of them fail miserably, and those that do the job decently often do not offer any more than improved effects. Not so here.H.G. Wells' story has had some liberties taken with it in this version. Again, most who attempt to stand on the shoulders of a great writer The wretched Planet of the Apes remake comes to mind stumble futilely. In this case, there is a deeper message than the original story. The latter part of the movie drags a little bit before getting to that crux, but it's worth it. As <more>
a product of the times, H.G. Wells apparently sought out to write a story colorfully in order to voice his grievances against the inevitable idiocies of war. That message seems to still be an important one, but this movie goes beyond that and says something about the human spirit, and a thought-provoking perspective that makes fate, not just war, an inevitable result of the limitations of our own consciousness.There are also things which are done better in the original of course. This version gives the future a little bit too much hope, and strays further from the original story than the 1960 version did. However, that is just Hollywood's typical smudge...the story is still poignant. The soundtrack is also very good.One thing it could do without are a few line gimmicks like referencing Einstein just to illustrate the time traveler's intelligence...but again, this is minute enough a detail that it is simply amusing and just shows the script was written dumbed down a little throughout, which is typical.This remake is an exception because it adds something good to the original, making them very similar, yet very different, such that both movies are compliments of each other. The only other that I've seen do this is The Parent Trap in my opinion anyhoo .
best movie ever, some IQ required for watching (by DorinDXN)
The Time Machine is one of the best films I've ever seen. At this moment I'd say it's the best film I've ever seen. I can't remember a film having that kind of effect on me in the cinema. It absolutely blew me away. It's the perfect SF movie, which is a minor achievement. What makes it incredible is that the perfect credible story not just "a animate clone" of the book, seeming to be a good receipt for a good movie. But it require a minimum IQ for watching and is not a movie for the week-end or for fun. The story is: Alexander Hartdegen Guy Pearce invents a <more>
time machine in the late 1800s that takes him 800,000 years into the future. There he discovers that mankind has evolved into two races: the Eloi and the Morlocks "..one of those staggeringly well-produced, joylessly extravagant pictures that keep whooshing you from one visual marvel to the next, hastily, emptily.." You must see more than once this movie, then you have the right to make a comment.
A heart-breaking, thought-provoking Sci-Fi adventure, even if somewhat flawed at times (by saarvardi)
Guy Pearce took advantage of his Memento fame to appear in two 2002 medium-sized hits The Time Machine and The Count of Monte Cristo; only to drop off the face of cinematic Earth later on. In this moving remake, however, we get to watch him in the roll of the haunted Alexander Hartdegen, a tormented science professor who cracks the equator that discovers time-travel in 19th century England, only to find out he can't save his beloved fiancée from dying. This tragic twist sends our protagonist looking for his salvation in the future flash forwarding to as far as the 8,028th <more>
century. Capitalizing more on the love story, this H.G. Wells adaptation fails to take proper advantage of the Eloi and Morlock sub-arc, but still remains intact as a heart-breaking, thought-provoking Sci-Fi adventure, even if somewhat flawed at times.
A university professor travels through time to find out why he can't change the loss of a loved one, but finds the future to be somewhat different to what he expected. (by 13724)
Good Lord, whoever wrote that essay about The Time Machine really must have no life at all. Sorry, to whoever you are, but how can you write such things about this film? I loved this film - i liked everything about it. The only slightly marred part of it was Jeremy Irons ; he was the only person for the job, but simply seeing him in another role like this was a little depressing, I always look forward to seeing him do something different- such as Lolita. But nonetheless, he was superb in the role.The story is interesting as well as faithful to the book as much as a book-based film can be . <more>
The actors are excellent and everything about it is exactly what I would have wanted.Anyone who wants a lot of entertainment, as well as fantastic music wait until the end titles, or when there is the pull-back shot of the Eloi's village over the river, it't just awesome then just watch this film. It's not going to win any Oscars, but I love it anyway.So please ignore what that silly person said about it being a 1.5 hour endurance test, because he's talking a load of rubbish. The Time Machine is great.
I had not expected anything from this film, so it was a real pleasure to watch it unravel. I love the book and i love the film which is not a literal adaptation. films do not have to be copies of the book, but to have the essence of the book. guy pearce was excellent in the role with a great supporting cast. i do wonder when i read some of the other comments on this film how anyone can come up with things like it is badly acted, made, effects etc. you can bet that these people would probably rate really bad films. anyway this version is streets ahead of the rod taylor sixties version, and <more>
simon wells should be proud he has kept the essence of his fathers vision and foresight.
Since Herbert George Wells 1866-1946 ' "The Time Machine" happens to be one of my favorite novels I was interested in this film mainly to see how the old man's great-grandson would handle his legacy.This film left me with mixed feelings.Many good points and many bad ones.The Good:I truly enjoyed the 19th centurie scenes with Alexander and Emma.Her tragic death and Alexander's wish to change it provides our Time Traveler with serious motivation that he seemed to luck in the book.His obsession with his work is another good point.When you turn all your efforts towards one <more>
point then it is more probable that you will achieve your goals.The scenes while the machine is operating are visualy beautiful.Alexander as a "wandering fool" and his amazement at the 21st centurie achievements are well done.The Uber-Morlock was quite impressive, his seing the memories, dreams and nightmares of others seem to have left him with a lot of wisdom.His lack of emotions in a matter of survival for himself and his race is understandable.Why should he be shocked?Humanity has fed on flesh for milenia.We knowed and we don't get shocked by it.Why should he be?He actualy seems evolved rather than devolved as the other Morlocks.The Bad:In the original novel humanity supposedly reached a golden age.The upper-class used the lower-class to achiebe its dream.A life with no worries.The upper-class lived in magnificent towers while the lower class was forced to live below the earth, in tunnels.As time went on the upper-class evolved to the Eloi living in a paradise.Childlike in appearance and in nature.Their luck of problems left them with no need to studie and eventualy all the wisdom of their founders was lost.They were left using achievements they couldn't understand and couldn't maintaine.The lower-class evolved into the Morlocks.Forgotten by the Eloi they were left to feed on each other and eventualy reached the surface and started feeding on the Eloi.Both races were devolved when the Time Traveler arrived.The only person from this time he actualy likes was Weena a young Eloi girl he saved who grew attached to him.In the novel they wander around studying the state of decline the human races had reached.Unfortunately all this history of the two races is lost in this movie.The plot about the Moon falling was rather ridiculous and hardly explained the evolution of the two races.The Eloi of the film are much more inteligent than those in the movie but nothing interesting is truly done with them.I was hoping to see Alexander trying to teach his new roomates some of his wisdom.But nothing like this happens.Why would Alexander be interested in those two races isn't explained.Why would he pass two chances to return to his time isn't expained at all.What gives him the right to kill the Morlocks is left equaly unexplained.The "Happy" ending leaves him living in a time that shouldn't held any interest for a science-loving man.Nothing to explore or study.After his experience with time travel I don't think he would just be content left in one or the other point of the time stream.Rather unfortunate progress.It could have been a classic if only the finale didn't resemble stupid adventure movies rather than the original novel or any other piece of fiction with an actual interest in the concept of time traveling.Alas the Wells family seems to be devolving too.
GOOD, ENTERTAINING FUN - but the 1960 Version is Still Tops (by Kirasjeri)
This version of the H.G. Wells classic is quite different from the wonderful 1960 movie starring Rod Taylor. As such, it remains entertaining but is rather more superficial. Nonetheless, I enjoyed it. This one is set in Manhattan instead of London, and the Wintry scenes of New York a century ago were nicely done. Instead of bemoaning the current dismal state of the world as in the 1960 version, our current hero, well-played by Guy Pearce, seeks to go back in time to prevent the untimely death of his beloved fiance. When he discovers this is impossible, he seeks resolution in the future. The <more>
special effects of course are good as he moves into that future, although the Geologic changes depicted could never have occurred in less than tens of millions of years.In the future, 800,000 from his present, following a calamity involving the destruction of much of the moon that nearly destroyed Earth that in lieu of the nuclear holocaust in the 1960 version he discovers the Eloi, now cliff-dwellers, who are indeed still there, although now instead of looking like blonde blue-eyed Aryans they are a nice Politically Correct cafe au lait color. Curiously, there seems to have been no change or improvement in this species despite those 800,000 years - evolution has apparently ceased. But that was how it was with the 1960 film; in fact, this type of Eloi is more intelligent and active-minded than the nearly brain-dulled zombies Rod Taylor discovered. They must have been more intelligent as they somehow got the steel handcuffs off our hero that had been placed there in the earlier scene in the past.This version is far kinder to the Eloi: our hero never feels rage at how they squandered the knowledge and history of civilization. Yes, books have crumbled, but there is a photonic human-like computer device, a remnant of the New York Public Library which contains every shred of information ever collected. How its power source remains up and running in a Stone Age world is never explained. "Self-contained power", perhaps?!The evil Morlocks are still around, and have evolved, but instead of menacingly appearing at night, or sounding sirens resulting in the Eloi marching catatonic and transfixed to their cannibalistic doom, the Morlocks now attack in broad daylight - and they are very muscular and athletic. In fact, we discover that those are just one type of Morlock - others include those who have emphasized their intellectual development instead of brawn, and Jeremy Irons does a great job as the spooky albino-like head Morlock, the "uber-Morlock". The scary hidden menace of night, in the Taylor version, in the world of the Eloi is missing from this film, unfortunately.Our hero's final battle was quite different from the other versions, and featured an altering of the future/present I still don't entirely understand. But it was compelling and dramatic.I missed the thoughtful tone of the 1960 film in which Taylor as "George" discussed Time as a Fourth Dimension, and had a close relationship over the years with his friend Filby, and later his son. The scenes where he stopped his Time Machine inside his old boarded up house seventeen years into the future are, regretably, gone - too slow for today's audience, as perceived by the producers. It all created for me a nostalgic even elegiacal emotion I missed in this movie. The end scene where Taylor returned to bring back "three books" for his life with the Eloi is not in the 2002 film. The well-known symbolism in the Wells' book, and somewhat in the 1960 version, of an Upper Class feeding off the labor of the Working Class, cannot be seen at all in this current movie. That despite it being ably directed, at least in part, by his great-grandson, Simon Wells. The performances are generally quite good. Besides the wonderful Mr Irons, Guy Pearce is excellent as Alexander Hartdgen. Samantha Mumba is credible as the the replacement for Yvette Mimieux's Weena - now called Mara. Her actual younger brother plays her film sibling. Although she is an Irish singer, she is also half African, thus satisfying the PC need for the correct complexion. Mark Addy is limited by the script as Filby; in the 1960 version Alan Young was wonderful in that role.Scenery, sets, art direction, and special effects are all quite good.This film was entertaining and enjoyable. I just wish it had also been also as thought-provoking for me as the 1960 Rod Taylor version had been. I know comparisons can be invidious, but they can't be helped when remaking a classic. Nonetheless, worth seeing.
If you liked the classic novel... sit back and enjoy! (by SILENCEikillyou)
This movie successfully portrays H.G. Wells novel with a few modern updates to what the vision of the future will be... highly effective . I like this story, having seen the original adaptation, this version was greatly needed. I think this film had what was needed to accurately project Wells' story: technology. Only with a sprinkling of CGI could this story be depicted visually. And it was done quite well. All the way down to the overall appearance of the time machine, itself. One obviously needs to have the ability to think for one's self in order to follow the depth of this <more>
epic.What worked: Obviously, the much needed technological advances in movie graphic arts. Though, this film didn't over use this graphics technology; it was very tasteful and powerful. Also, the acting talent was well-selected; esp. Guy Pierce. He just has the perfect amount of madness in his looks for the part while maintaining a certain attractiveness, allowing the audience to be able to relate to him . This was a stunning visual achievement.What didn't work: The portrayal of the Eloi could have used some improvement. Maybe the film could have gone into more of an explanation as to the motivation of the peoples, going to that particular area and most assuredly into the clutches of the hunters. Still, this might only bother those who read the book... it really didn't detract that much from the enjoyment.8/10 - could have been a little better; though, it was quite good.thank you