Hoping to alter the events of the past, a 19th century inventor instead travels 800,000 years into the future, where he finds humankind divided into two warring races.Hoping to alter the events of the past, a 19th century inventor instead travels 800,000 years into the future, where he finds humankind divided into two warring races.Hoping to alter the events of the past, a 19th century inventor instead travels 800,000 years into the future, where he finds humankind divided into two warring races.
- Nominated for 1 Oscar
- 2 wins & 4 nominations total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Alexander Hartdegen (Guy Pearce) is a scientist living in 1899 NYC. He proposes to his girlfriend Emma, but she's killed in a robbery. Four years later, he builds a time machine. However when he tries going back to rescue Emma, she is killed in a different way. Disenchanted, he travels forward in time to 2030 to search for a way to change the past. However he finds nothing about time travel. He jumps forward another 7 years to find the world in collapse and chaos after the moon is destroyed. He tries to use his time machine again but an explosion knocks him out. The machine keeps running until 802,701 AD when he regains consciousness.
The movie works well for awhile, but the future world of Eloi and Morlock is a bit of a letdown. It takes the H. G. Wells world and makes a Planet of the Apes movie out of it. In the end, the well-made movie is let down by this. Also there is an uncompelling action ending. The movie just has nothing profound to say, and is a barely functional action movie.
The movie works well for awhile, but the future world of Eloi and Morlock is a bit of a letdown. It takes the H. G. Wells world and makes a Planet of the Apes movie out of it. In the end, the well-made movie is let down by this. Also there is an uncompelling action ending. The movie just has nothing profound to say, and is a barely functional action movie.
I have a theory that if you can watch a movie twenty years or so after it was initially released, it's probably a good movie.
A lot of folks complain that it wasn't "the original", and that's okay. The original is a good movie, and this doesn't really need to be it. Instead it takes a story, updates and tweaks it just a bit and creates a delightful world of it's own. Sure, there are a few plot holes, and yes, there are a few scenes that could have done better. But they aren't hell-worthy trespasses, and are forgivable for the sake of propelling the plot forward.
Other than the spot on casting, which is enjoyable and fun and really well portrayed, what brings you into this film are the sets and sceneries. This movie came out before CGI was used to replace the world rather than augment the world, and so you have real sets in real woods and real costumed creatures, and it just pulls together nicely. The music fits incredibly well to capture the tribal setting that humanity has found itself back into without it being too anachronistic.
All in all a fun, enjoyable film to watch, and much better than a lot of movies that have been coming out lately that force the narrative, rather than letting the story unfold.
A lot of folks complain that it wasn't "the original", and that's okay. The original is a good movie, and this doesn't really need to be it. Instead it takes a story, updates and tweaks it just a bit and creates a delightful world of it's own. Sure, there are a few plot holes, and yes, there are a few scenes that could have done better. But they aren't hell-worthy trespasses, and are forgivable for the sake of propelling the plot forward.
Other than the spot on casting, which is enjoyable and fun and really well portrayed, what brings you into this film are the sets and sceneries. This movie came out before CGI was used to replace the world rather than augment the world, and so you have real sets in real woods and real costumed creatures, and it just pulls together nicely. The music fits incredibly well to capture the tribal setting that humanity has found itself back into without it being too anachronistic.
All in all a fun, enjoyable film to watch, and much better than a lot of movies that have been coming out lately that force the narrative, rather than letting the story unfold.
When Victorian scientist Alexander Hartdegen sees his fiancé murdered during a petty robbery, he throws himself into his work while all even his closest friends know is that he is doing nonsense research and physics. Four years later though and Alexander has created his machine a time machine that he plans to use to return to the fateful night and save his true love. Somehow he cannot do it though and, in despair, he drives himself forward into the future to find progress beyond his wildest dreams. This progress though, comes with costs and risks both of which Alexander is very aware of as he moves into a world where mankind has changed beyond all recognition.
This film was wildly derided when it came out in the cinemas and I never bothered to go and see it, preferring to let time pass and pick it up for free on television in a few years. That time came recently and I watched a version of HG Wells' Time Machine that is loosely based on the source material. It starts with potential but all too quickly it becomes obvious and surprisingly heartless almost making a conscious decision that the effects will be what people come for and that doing a solid job on those will be enough. Sadly that is not the case but, were it, the effects are already superseded and do not look as impressive as they once may have done. With the humanity and the emotion built into the story, the delivery is quite stiff and dull and I found myself surprised by how little interest I had it the story even when I was far into it. Not totally sure where the problems lie with this but script is certainly one of them (some of the dialogue and exposition is terribly clunky) while the overall production did appear effects driven.
It is a shame because Guy Pearce frequently offers more from his performance and his potential but the film never really takes him up on it and it leaves him isolated, trying to be a character in a film that would seem to just prefer an action hero. Mumba looks good (if you ignore that at times her face is chimp-like, and no it is not racist to say so) but she cannot act for toffee she didn't even run and scream all that convincingly. God knows what about the film made Irons decide to do his poor character but he is not alone as other famous faces such as Bloom and Addey show up.
The Time Machine is not the awful film that some say but it is just very heartless and dull. Some of the effects are good and the plot did have potential but the script and design never let this come out, seemingly more interested in visual bang-for-buck than they were about producing an effective and engaging story.
This film was wildly derided when it came out in the cinemas and I never bothered to go and see it, preferring to let time pass and pick it up for free on television in a few years. That time came recently and I watched a version of HG Wells' Time Machine that is loosely based on the source material. It starts with potential but all too quickly it becomes obvious and surprisingly heartless almost making a conscious decision that the effects will be what people come for and that doing a solid job on those will be enough. Sadly that is not the case but, were it, the effects are already superseded and do not look as impressive as they once may have done. With the humanity and the emotion built into the story, the delivery is quite stiff and dull and I found myself surprised by how little interest I had it the story even when I was far into it. Not totally sure where the problems lie with this but script is certainly one of them (some of the dialogue and exposition is terribly clunky) while the overall production did appear effects driven.
It is a shame because Guy Pearce frequently offers more from his performance and his potential but the film never really takes him up on it and it leaves him isolated, trying to be a character in a film that would seem to just prefer an action hero. Mumba looks good (if you ignore that at times her face is chimp-like, and no it is not racist to say so) but she cannot act for toffee she didn't even run and scream all that convincingly. God knows what about the film made Irons decide to do his poor character but he is not alone as other famous faces such as Bloom and Addey show up.
The Time Machine is not the awful film that some say but it is just very heartless and dull. Some of the effects are good and the plot did have potential but the script and design never let this come out, seemingly more interested in visual bang-for-buck than they were about producing an effective and engaging story.
The four of us are in the 40 - 50 age range, and we are fairly tough what we like and do not like in films. It was Friday night and we wanted entertainment. We read the comments below - mostly, but not all negative - and decided to take a gamble. Arriving at the cinema, we were prepared for a bad movie but hoping for 'a good relaxing time'. Well, we *did* like this film! Not a top box office smash or even an 8 out of 10, but entertaining nevertheless. The MUSIC was superb. ACTING was fine. HISTORIC life portrayed in old Cambridge Massachusetts was realistic - even the snow and cold weather was real. The ROMANCE was acceptable. The STORY, while not closely following H G Well, was good enough. The SPECIAL EFFECTS were very good indeed. It is worth a gamble, to see this film. But go with a light heart and an acceptable frame of mind, and keep your expectations below that of a 10 out of 10 film.
I first watchd this flm with my parents who, when rewatching it with me, felt so nostalgic. I didn't get that feeling obviously being younger, however I can tell how magical this film would have been to them previously because I felt it even now.
I really liked this film. I thought the great storyline of time travel and the sets I thought were amazing. The time machine itself as a prop and his I think its like a study or an office I thought was gorgeous in the way it looked.
Brilliant acting I thought from everyone, intersesting concepts and just overall a very enjoyable film to watch.
I strongly reccomend!
I really liked this film. I thought the great storyline of time travel and the sets I thought were amazing. The time machine itself as a prop and his I think its like a study or an office I thought was gorgeous in the way it looked.
Brilliant acting I thought from everyone, intersesting concepts and just overall a very enjoyable film to watch.
I strongly reccomend!
Did you know
- TriviaThe director Simon Wells is the great-grandson of H.G. Wells, who wrote the 1895 novel upon which the film is based.
- GoofsWhen Alexander travels to the year 635,427,810, he witnesses a barren landscape littered with Morlock caves as far as the eye can see, and he sees what looks like humans, presumably the Eloi, being led away in chains by the Morlocks. In all of this time, it seems unbelievable that neither race would have evolved into other races, remaining the same, especially since humans had split into two races within just 800,000 years.
- Quotes
Über-Morlock: We all have our time machines, don't we. Those that take us back are memories... And those that carry us forward, are dreams.
- ConnectionsFeatured in HBO First Look: The Time Machine (2002)
- SoundtracksSweet Rosie O'Grady
Written by Maude Nugent (as Maude Nugent Jerome)
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- La máquina del tiempo
- Filming locations
- New England Building, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York, USA(Interior Opening Scene)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $80,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $56,832,494
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $22,610,437
- Mar 10, 2002
- Gross worldwide
- $123,729,176
- Runtime
- 1h 36m(96 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content