Reżyseria:
Simon WellsZdjęcia:
Donald McAlpineMuzyka:
Klaus BadeltObsada:
Guy Pearce, Samantha Mumba, Mark Addy, Sienna Guillory, Phyllida Law, Alan Young, Yancey Arias, Orlando Jones, Jeremy Irons, Laura Kirk, Josh Stamberg (więcej)Opisy(1)
Naukowiec i wynalazca Alexander Hartdegen jest opętany pragnieniem odkrycia sposobu poruszania się w czasie. Jego obsesja jest ściśle powiązana z osobistą tragedią. Hartdegen liczy, że uda mu się zmienić przeszłość. Kiedy w czasie jednego z wielu testów udaje mu się przenieść o 800 tysięcy lat w przyszłość, odkrywa, że... (Warner Home Video)
(więcej)Recenzje (7)
The Time Machine is beautifully filmed and has amazing visual effects, and Guy Pearce does the best he can, but it’s almost as stupid as Wild Wild West in terms of content. Fortunately, however, it’s significantly shorter and comes to an end before it can make you angry. With a wink, in a weak moment of viewer naïveté and modesty, I’d give it three stars.
()
A tragicomic example of how a good book can be turned into a first-class travesty. The first half hour is still fine, it has momentum, is quite imaginative and the time shift is masterfully executed. But from the moment Pearce gets to the far future, the film becomes hopeless, starting with a silly plot that goes against the book, and ending with the costumes of the Morlocks and the cardboard sets – an unbelievable shitshow. And poor Jeremy Irons looks like the bizarre guy who offered Nicolas Cage the S&M porn tapes in 8 MM. Simon Wells, I don't know, I don't know, great-grandpa wouldn't be happy.
()
I didn't expect anything from The Time Machine. But I certainly was not pleasantly surprised by the result. The film is missing one very important thing: Heart. The heart of director Simon Wells, who claims to be the great-grandson of the author of the book H.G. Wells. The film is made without any passion for the book, without a sense for arranging scenes, and as a result, I feel like I just watched some cold calculation that producers quickly devised and had this project rushed through. The beginning of the story is very promising when Alexander takes his first trip through time. Instead of portraying a person exploring and experimenting with their invention, the script strangely dictates that they instantly bond with the machine, accepting its capabilities as something entirely natural. The vision of the future might only captivate around the year 2037 when the Moon crashes into the Earth. But even this scene, where a perfect apocalypse could have been unleashed, was abruptly cut, and the film jumped forward to the year 800,000. So what’s it like? Just going back to the Stone Age is enough, and we'll end up the same way. The "pretentiousness" of Guy Pearce's acting at the beginning, where he attempts to portray a somewhat scattered scientist, brought a smile to my face. However, that doesn't mean his tough guy act as a world savior was any better. The Time Machine may seem like a grand spectacle, but upon closer reflection, it becomes evident that it's merely a film made to cater to the popcorn industry's demands. Poor H.G. Wells, he's probably turning in his grave. However, I can't sympathize with him because I haven't read his book.
()
Simon Wells is admirably clever in that he was able to glue together this slushy band of time cards into at least a bit of a fun sequence... but it is a futile endeavor to look for something above-average and lasting in this train wreck between Planet of the Apes and a Jules Verne Disney adaptation. I am adding a star for the likeable Guy Pearce... and for the fact that my evening went by quickly.
()
How to evaluate this matter? A high-budget film created as a calculated calculation of the studio and the director. The invested money is evident in the visual aspect, a number of tricks are interesting even with the passage of time, but the script is incredibly stupid and offensive. I have no understanding for this type of production, it only brings shame to my favorite genre. Scenes from the future seem like a deterrent case of creative dementia. Overall impression 25%.
()
The special effects - without reservations. Pearce and Irons - the same. It's worse with the story. It's kind of bland (I read the book and I know that it's not the most interesting either), and Samantha Mumba is a nice-looking girl, but like the main character I probably wouldn't choose her. A slightly above average film with good music.
()
But yeah, it's quite a nice mainstream idea - an effort to reach a wider audience, even though there is a film from 1960 that did it much better. This can only be justified by the fact that it tries to build on the legacy of H. G. Wells, but without understanding his attempts to criticize society a little bit.
()