The Time Machine

How to review this... A high-budget film created as a deliberate calculation by the studio and the director. The money invested is evident in the visual aspect, with many effects remaining interesting even over time, but the script is stupid to the point of being offensive. I have no understanding for this type of production; it only brings shame to my favorite genre. The scenes set in the future appear as a cautionary example of creative dementia. Overall impression 25%. (11/25/2007)

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. (09/21/2009)

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. (06/16/2002)

It has a pretty nice mainstream idea - trying to appeal to a wider audience, although there's a film from 1960 that did this much better. The only thing the film can be credited for is trying to build on the legacy of H.G. Wells, but without understanding his attempts to poke a little fun at society. (11/26/2015)

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. (09/18/2009)