Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Timeline

This is topic Timeline in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000687

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-26-2003, 05:57 AM:

Not too bad. In fact, over the movies I've seen in the last few months, this is probably the best one.

Disclaimer - you must be able to put the ridiculous explanation of how the plot in this movie is capable of happening.

So assuming you can put reality aside and get lost in the movie, it's a pretty fun trip. It drags around reels 3-5, but starts off well and ends with a lot of action. Good performances, nice sound mix, scope (makes any movie better) and a decent way to kill 2 hours of your life.

3 stars out of 4

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 11-26-2003, 08:28 AM:

You speak of putting reality aside. If you like star trek or the original star wars then the reality issue shouldn't be an issue.
From what I read was that the producers wasn't as interested in telling what makes the time travel work as they where in trying to tell the story. But they did say that the film is based on theories that could work. Anyway I hope to catch it at cinemarc 17 in a few days.

Posted by Chris Markiewicz (Member # 1415) on 11-27-2003, 02:49 PM:

I screened this Tuesday night. It follows the Crichton book quite closely; the book does go into the time travel process more deeply. I agree that the image and sound were good; lots of use of surround. Good SRD track, reading as low as 1 in a 5-Star basement reader. I saw one instance of CRAP code, and there was some negative (white) dirt, but otherwise OK. Great battle footage, especially the trebuchets laying siege to the castle. Worth seeing especially if you've read the book.

Posted by Kelly Skaggs (Member # 1780) on 11-27-2003, 05:57 PM:

To start out I am a huge fan of Crichton's books. The movies are more then often very bad. I was pleasantly surprised by this one. It is by far the best movie adaptation of any Crichton book. I was expecting the worst from how the trailers show it. It does follow pretty close to the book, the parts they did have to cut to keep the movie flowing are good in the book but not really missed in the movie. I thought this is one of the better movies I have seen this year. [thumbsup]

Posted by Don Anderson (Member # 397) on 11-28-2003, 12:22 PM:

Oh boy.....another Time Machine clone. Its been done before, and it will happen again. Lets face it Paul Walker can't act, he's just another pretty face. This film is bombing up here in the northern woods! I never read the book, nor would I want to after seeing this incredibly long movie version of it. Why did this open Thanksgiving weekend??? Does Hollywood actually think that this movie has any power to it???

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-28-2003, 06:43 PM:

I prefer to think of "Timeline" as being the "Stargate" sequel that we never got. I enjoyed both movies and will probably stop into one my theatres to see "Timeline" at least one more time.

I had heard considerable negative talk about this movie and was pleasantly surprised when I finally screened it.

Paul Walker ("2 Fast 2 Furious") is a competent leading man. Michael Crichton ("Jurassic Park") is a brilliant sci-fi author. Richard Donner is a proven director of action films ("Lethal Weapon") as well as fantasy films ("Ladyhawke" and "Superman"). Even though I enjoyed "Timeline" a great deal, it *is* somehow a lesser movie than one might expect from a production involving such an impressive array of talent.

Billy Connolly (a.k.a. 'The Professor') is the weak link in the cast but it was a nice surprise to see Ethan Embry (star of "Can't Hardly Wait") in a supporting role.

Ditto on the sound mix being a good one. The analog track is lively and aggressive. Fun, fun, fun.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-29-2003, 05:29 AM:

I found this boring and shallow. They didn`t put in any more effort to recreate a believable historical athmosphere than an afternoon TV show. The "historical" people speak completely contemporary English and French, all have nice hairdos and perfect teeth. The scene with the Scottish guy and the French lady in the boat was completely ridiculous. I didn`t see the first 5 minutes of the film, but I gathered his character was basically what the Dutch medieval history expert was in the book. So he would have an idea of how to talk to the lady. Yeah sure, a French noblewoman in the 14th century would "see someone". She would go to the movies with her date and hang out at the beach with him [puke]

Crichton usually creates very interesting and somehow believable worlds in his books, and it has been shown in Jurassic Park and to some extent in the 13th Warrior that this can be recreated on the screen to a certain extent, but not here.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-29-2003, 11:30 AM:

Methinks someone hath the point missed!

Speaking for myself:

I have no desire to spend a couple of hours looking at ugly people with bad hair and bad teeth and listening to some olde funky version of English and/or French.

If I wanted "real" I wouldn't go to the movies. I certainly wouldn't go to a movie about time-travel. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-29-2003, 01:02 PM:

It doesn`t have to be documentary level "real" - there are too many things we don`t know exactly anyway. But they should at least try to create some believable athmosphere. It is not about the correctness of medieval language. It`s OK if we watch a historic movie with dialog that we can understand.
But here you put modern characters in the medieval age. The characters had no problems at all communicating with the the medieval people (except for the scene I mentioned which makes it stick out even more). It didn`t look at all as if they were in a different time and place. That took the fascination out of the idea of what an adventure it must be to travel in time.

Manny - you didn`t understand what I meant. I wasn`t saying that the movie as such is unrealistic. Like Brad said, we have to suspend our disbelief to accept the basic fact that time travel is possible in this movie. Once we do that, we can watch this movie. Or read the book, which I did and liked very much.
But the basic idea of the story is to confront 2 historic realities. Only, when it doesn`t look real at all, the fascination of the idea is gone.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-29-2003, 01:14 PM:

Okay, I can see your point.

And, you know what? The 'culture clash' may even have given rise to one or two humorous moments.

I must admit I felt that the direction erred too heavily on the side of the action-drama elements whereas Donner has been known to inject a healthy dose of humor into his films.

Posted by Shane Hoffmann (Member # 1620) on 11-30-2003, 12:11 AM:

This movie was mediocre. Much like with Stephen King adaptations, Crichton books are often butchered on screen. I love Michael Crichton and have read all of his novels.

The thing that most disappointed me was the fact that they didn't give us the impression that this stuff could happen in real life. Whenever you pick up a Crichton book, you can expect to be a little uncertain about your former beliefs on the subject he explores after you finish reading it. With Timeline, the book goes into some detail about the basics of quantum physics and why we should believe that we could end up in the fourteenth century. There are many physicists who have researched this extensively, and who believe there are multiple universes (which is what Timeline dealt with, not time travel).

In the movie, they don't make an effort to tell you any of this, most people leave the theater just thinking it's some sci-fi movie about a time machine. I understand that most of the viewers wouldn't understand what they were talking about, but they could have thrown words like "quantum foam," "multiverse," or anything about the "space-time continuum" to make the rest of us happy.

Everything happens too quickly. The first act seemed to last about 5 minutes, and then they were looking for the professor. I don't like watching anything with Paul Walker on screen, and Frances O'Connor gave one of the worst performances I've ever seen. She sounded like a high school cheerleader that was acting in a school play. Everything she said sounded fake.

I was happy with the battle scenes, which cut away from the scenes with Chris and Kate long enough for me to keep my sanity, and for this movie to get 2-1/2 out of 5 stars.