Customer Reviews

Timeline

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(13)
3 star:		(14)
2 star:		(14)
1 star:		(36)

 

 

What a lazy, sophomoric effort by Richard Donner. I read Timeline a few years ago and I recall enjoying it. It wasn't great literature, but it was fast and fun and I looked forward to the film version. I regret to report that I honestly can't think of one single redeeming feature in this sorry excuse of a film. A script that butchers the book, which is amazing in itself. Crichton practically writes his novels for the screen these days. Uninspired directing. In the past Donner has given us some fine work like Ladyhawk and Lethal Weapon. It was painfully obvious that the person who made this turd just did not care if it was good or not. The cast was barely adequate, with only Gerard Butler making any kind of impression. The action scenes were cable TV quality, as were the sets and costumes. How bad was this movie? Congo (another Crichton novel that was mugged by the filmakers), by comparison, was a good movie. Zero artistic effort here. Sub-zero, if there is such a thing.

Book? I don't know about any book, I'm talking about the movie. I can't believe someone even dared to share this crapp with us.

Filled with flaws, TERRIBLE acting, stupid plot (ergo stupid screenplay), cheap unbelievable custome design, cheesy, artless, mindless, insulting, etc. etc. etc.

I wish I'd watch it more recently so I could make a list for you of all the flaws, mistakes, nonsense presented in this rubbish. I can remember an example though:

When the archeologists are discovering that new "whatever" underground, the girls says: "Who would destroy such a beautiful piece of art?" (the stone). Then, when they are back in middle age, she is infront of the stone and she must break it so they can escape, then she remembers what she said and answers herself: "Oh, I did it". (...) What?! The writer might've as well al least watched Back To The Future to get some lessons on time-traveling rules. Nothing you change in the past can be seen in the present before you did it (before the time traveling), because if wouldn't have any sense. In less words, what if she decided NOT to travel in time? Would that stone be broken? Who would've done it? crapp, crapp, crapp.

No opinions here, some movies are still about opinions (In my opinion it's good, in my opinion it's bad), this is plain bad and anyone who thinks the contrary has no idea what he's talking about, and if you son't believe me, check the general rating.

This one wins my vote for the worst movie of the year with clichés galore, a thin, predictable, and unbelievable plot, bad dialogue, and inaccurate historical facts. It's not even mildly entertaining; however it is nauseating in its cheesiness. As I watched the movie, I wished that either the French or the English would kill off all of the time traveling main characters so that the story would end. Needless to say, I couldn't sit through the whole thing. In short, don't waste your money on this one. If you must see it, rent it first.

Richard Donner usually does good movies. Not today. This is another example of a good book that was made into a terrible movie.

Having read the Crichton book of the same title I felt it necessary to see the film, to satisfy my curiosity if nothing else. While some changes may have been necessary to pad out the script and keep the movie flowing, there is no excuse for the major changes which ruined the script. Bad acting also followed this film, and there was no real connection between any of the actors. This film would appeal to many if they enjoy a good action film, but for anyone who read the book it is just a let-down. The one star I award this film is out of sympathy only.

What could be duller and more pointless than the 100 years war? Perhaps making a film about a group of archaeologists who time travel to fourteenth century France.
The originality of this film is that it is so lacking in and original idea. We have been to this place before in the much more interesting and creative 'Stargate'. That film took us on a real adventure to a place where all history was Earth history was born and where a force of evil spawned the early gods.
In 'Timeline' we get to visit a grimy pointless war in at the close of the dark ages with a group of myopic and expendable characters. What is the outcome? It is a predictable story that limps along to a forgone conclusion, a waste of talent and celluloid.
What could be worse than that? Bad acting and worse writing is the answer and it is served to perfection in this oeuvre of trash. The failure of the film begins with the writing and then segues into the lifeless direction. Richard Donner has never surpassed his pedestrian work on 1978's 'Superman'. It all finally comes to a thudding stop at what is referred to as acting.
Paul Walker is not an actor without talent. He was superb in "Pleasantville" and hit all the right notes in "The Fast And The Furious". Yet here he squanders his good looks and talent on bad writing and dull direction. Billy Connolly who was so brilliant in 'Mrs. Brown' is the one of two who comes off with any grace in this misfire. The other who escapes with little damage is Gerard Butler who is always impressive. He takes some very bad dialog and improbable situations and turns them to his advantage.
The high school senior year acting class honors however to to Francis O'Connor. Is it the writing that makes her so bad? Almost anyone would have a struggle with such howling lines to read. Perhaps it is a lack of experience. No, that can't be it. She has done some fine work in the past from 'Mansfield Park' to 'A.I.'. I finally figured out what bothered me so about her in 'Timeline'. Its the strangest thing, almost spooky in fact, is the casting of this young actress who looks like she went to a plastic surgeon and asked to be made to look like a middle aged Barbara Hershey. This is what kept me riveted to the screen throughout the unfortunate experience. I was fascinated at the creepiness of the resemblance between the young Francis O'Connor and older and very preserved Miss Hershey.
Now there is an idea for a science fiction film. An aging actress from the 60's has herself cloned so that her image may go on in films making bad choices and worse films for eternity. That is until someone from the past shows up in a time machine and puts an end to the endless dry rot. Come to think of it, has anyone seen Barbara Hershey lately? It's too spooky!

Maybe one and a half stars would be more accurate. After all, I've given one star to House of the Dead and this isn't nearly that level of dreck. I probably wouldn't have disliked 'Timeline' so much if I wasn't positive that there wasn't a better movie buried in here. The problems abound, however, and there are unresolved issues pretty much across the board.

The script is an absolute mess. Especially in a time-travel movie, when you create a set if rules for the science of your film, you HAVE TO FOLLOW THEM. For example, it's commented in the beginning of the film that no modern weaponry can make the leap back. OK, the technology hadn't been invented yet, that makes sense. So what do we see not ten minutes later ... a grenade? I'm not even going to mention how the ending of Merrick's character should have completely changed the future or the way a team of archeologists would so recklessly think nothing of interfering with the past. When writing this kind of a script, a screen-writer HAS to follow the rules he sets for himself.

I also never did come to understand why 3 or 4 people had to get killed going back to save a 70 year old man. Why exactly was he so important that you couldn't just leave him there? There were also a great number of characters were only developed half-way. I'm thinking, in particular, of every employee in the corporation that built the time machine. It seemed like there was more going on there that we, as an audience, were filled in on.

The set design is poor. I couldn't have put it better when another reviewer stated that the film looked like it was made on the back-lot of Monty-Python's Holy Grail. Everything just looked like it was made of cardboard.

Speaking of cardboard, the acting's awful. He seems to be my new whipping boy, but I'll say it again ... PAUL WALKER CANNOT ACT. He HAS to be the worst actor of the modern era. He CANNOT carry and headline a film, he doesn't have the ability. Other then that the cast list was pretty well loaded with talent that was never cultivated properly.

The directing was lazy. I'm normally a big Richard Donner fan. There have only been a handful of movies he's done that I really think were stinkers. Unfortunately, this is one of them. His resume is too loaded with great films to think that this was anything other then a hiccup. I'm not letting him off the hook either though. He had a TON of resources at his disposal and just couldn't bring ANY of it together.

The time and money that were pumped into 'Timeline' really should have made for a better product then we were ultimately going to get. I'm instead left with the feeling that I'd be more inclined to just go watch 'Braveheart' again.

Time travel is an exhausted movie theme. Sometimes it works, but most times it doesn't. Welcome to a time where it doesn't. Michael Crichton's novel gets 'medieval' quality in this poorly executed film. You can read the plot in the description above, but basically, several time travel students go back to 14th Century France to rescue their founder. There are no great special effects and everything looks like a standard (or substandard) movie sound stage. The acting is as wooden as the stage sets and every sincere attempt at emotion is embarrassingly tepid. The medieval castle scenes resemble something Monty Python would assemble and the fighting scenes are cut so poorly that you never know who's hitting whom. But that's being picky. My biggest beef is the time machine. It took years to invent and assemble and gets blown apart in a (really dumb) accident. But, it is repaired within the six hour window needed to bring everyone back. How's that again? Well, this is Hollywood, not literature. No need to discuss the extras other than to say there is no need for three documentaries on "Journey through Time". Next film please.

The movie is based on the novel "Timeline" by Michael Crichton.

Turns out that someone at ITC is making too many accurate guesses about where to find things in an archaeological dig. Professor E.A. Johnston (Billy Connolly) gets a little suspicious. Two days after professor Johnson leaves to investigate, his glasses lens if found in a box from the France of 1357; the professor is missing.

As you guessed, it is a rescue in time movie. There are twists and turns. Can history be changed? And who are the good guys? Who is the one-eared man that is buried with Lady Claire (Anna Friel)?

The costumes were well done. The dialog was fair. The music that got loud at times never overwhelmed the dialog.

The movie was released in 2004 but the comments in the movie say 1971.

Even if it is formula, you will be entranced until the very end.

Abraham doesnt sound like too intelligent of a reviewer so I will try and make sense of it.

The movie is entertaining, if LOOSELY based off the incredible book by Michael Crichton. (Abraham, i suggest you read the book before blathering off about something you know nothing about)

There are plot holes, bad acting, and less than stellar wardrobes. But if you have read the book, it is still entertaining to see the characters on screen and see the story in action.