510 reviews
Based on some of the other comments I was expecting to hate this movie. I didn't, but I see why the reviews seem so negative. There are so many things to pick at, and no real bright spots to talk up.
It really wasn't that bad. It wasn't great, but it's worth a rental. I'm not sure I would have felt I got my money's worth in the theater.
I'm sure it was a tough chore to convert the original story to a 2-hour movie script. They had to take several liberties and condense quite a bit to do so. Unfortunately, that affected the flow and the movie ends up being a little choppy. How and why they go back in time is pretty well cut out of the movie and without any detail the believability is nil. The story boils down to a pretty standard chase and explosion thriller set in the middle ages.
Definitely treat yourself to a read of the book the movie is based on. Like any book, the depth of characterization is so much more rich and interesting than what comes through in the movie. Once you get past the introductory technical jargon to set up the story it is a real page turner.
It really wasn't that bad. It wasn't great, but it's worth a rental. I'm not sure I would have felt I got my money's worth in the theater.
I'm sure it was a tough chore to convert the original story to a 2-hour movie script. They had to take several liberties and condense quite a bit to do so. Unfortunately, that affected the flow and the movie ends up being a little choppy. How and why they go back in time is pretty well cut out of the movie and without any detail the believability is nil. The story boils down to a pretty standard chase and explosion thriller set in the middle ages.
Definitely treat yourself to a read of the book the movie is based on. Like any book, the depth of characterization is so much more rich and interesting than what comes through in the movie. Once you get past the introductory technical jargon to set up the story it is a real page turner.
- captainm25
- Jul 21, 2014
- Permalink
As is true in so many cases, the book, Timeline, is way better than the movie. But that doesn't mean the movie isn't fun though. It is based on the Michael Crichton's novel by the same name. Crichton is responsible for many great books, but is most known for Jurassic Park, which was famously adapted by Spielberg. With this being said you can definitely expect a story with a great premise.
Timeline follows a group of archaeologists who are digging a site at Castleguard, France. They are funded by a technology company, ITC, and have been receiving hints about their site to the point where the boss, Professor Johnston (Billy Connolly), becomes suspicious. He goes to find out what the back story is and the next day his crew discovers a new room at the site which has a note left by the professor from 14th century France.
The professor's son, Chris (Paul Walker), and the crew led by Kate Ericson (Frances O'Connor) and Andre Marek (Gerard Butler) go to ITC to find out what is going on. They learn that the company built a 3d fax machine that tapped into a wormhole sending its packages, or in this case humans, back to 14th century Castleguard, France. The group then heads back in time to go save the professor, who was sent back there to figure out the connection of the wormhole and their site.
While the film has a great premise it probably would have been a lot better if it was made ten years later with a bigger budget. The story starts off strong, but then proceeds to tail off into B-movie territory. It has some performances by actors you will know, but the script doesn't help them, and it certainly doesn't reach the highs of the book. By no means is this a success, but it does well to keep you entertained if you're just looking for a movie that will be a time killer.
Timeline follows a group of archaeologists who are digging a site at Castleguard, France. They are funded by a technology company, ITC, and have been receiving hints about their site to the point where the boss, Professor Johnston (Billy Connolly), becomes suspicious. He goes to find out what the back story is and the next day his crew discovers a new room at the site which has a note left by the professor from 14th century France.
The professor's son, Chris (Paul Walker), and the crew led by Kate Ericson (Frances O'Connor) and Andre Marek (Gerard Butler) go to ITC to find out what is going on. They learn that the company built a 3d fax machine that tapped into a wormhole sending its packages, or in this case humans, back to 14th century Castleguard, France. The group then heads back in time to go save the professor, who was sent back there to figure out the connection of the wormhole and their site.
While the film has a great premise it probably would have been a lot better if it was made ten years later with a bigger budget. The story starts off strong, but then proceeds to tail off into B-movie territory. It has some performances by actors you will know, but the script doesn't help them, and it certainly doesn't reach the highs of the book. By no means is this a success, but it does well to keep you entertained if you're just looking for a movie that will be a time killer.
- DrewAlexanderR1
- Jul 27, 2015
- Permalink
I rented this movie knowing that is it based on a Michael Crichton book. The Movie was somewhat entertaining if you could get past the acting. The sets and the costumes were done well and the battle scenes were plausible. However if you read the book there is so much more to explore with the characters and the action. This book was written so it could be a movie. Ten years down the road this should be remade for justice sake. A mini series on could be in order because of the additional scenes that would be needed. And no I am not naive, I know that in any adaptation sacrifices must be made but I feel that because they got a big name to play Chris the centered the movie around him when it is clearly better balanced in the book. I am not a book snob but I saw so much potential in this concept that I felt that the movie was unfinished. That is why I read the book. Judge for your self.
Timeline, starring the late Paul Walker and Gerard Butler, and featuring a large and talented supporting cast, is an underrated film based on a very underrated book by sci-thriller master, the late Michael Crichton.
This was always going to be a tricky film to make because the book's story is based on the sci-fi premise of time travel. The film preserves most of Crichton's brilliant plot--a tech firm in the American desert is trying to invent teleportation but stumbles into a wormhole that only sends the transported back in time to the year 1375 and a village in France during the brutal 100 Years' War.
The actors making up the principle groups of story characters, the oily and secretive tech guys, the erstwhile archaeology students who get caught up in the tech guys' invention, and the, of course, late medieval English and French combatants the first two groups both travel back in time to encounter, are well-cast and well--directed by Richard Donner. Particular supporting role standouts here are Marton Csokas as Decker, David Thewlis as Doniger and Michael Sheen as 'Lord Oliver.' Anna Friel is perfectly medieval and ladylike yet attractively modern as Lady Clare, and Neal McDonough and Matt Craven post terrific performances as the wayward tech firm's henchmen.
What gets left out from the book, what really has to get left out unless Donner et al were to pull a Peter Jackson and stretch Timeline into three films, is the trove of rich, textured, historical detail about virtually every aspect of the little French village and castle combination that the story circles around. The book is, indeed, better than the film, simply because Crichton's historical fiction writing work on all things 'Aquitainian' in Timeline equals or exceeds anything Bernard Cornwell or Tom Clancy have ever put out in terms of nourishing minutiae. But you can't competently get all that in inside a 2 hour film.
With the exception of a few scenes where a character here and there is "run through" with a broadsword, Timeline is almost a family- friendly film, something that young people and the mature crowd can enjoy together. Almost, parents, screen it first.
Most Crichton fans have never heard of or read Timeline, and most Richard Donner, Paul Walker, and Gerard Butler fans have never seen this very solid little 2003 film. Hopefully those oversights are rectified as time moves forward, because Timeline is an underrated film based on a very underrated book, and that means it deserves an audience.
This was always going to be a tricky film to make because the book's story is based on the sci-fi premise of time travel. The film preserves most of Crichton's brilliant plot--a tech firm in the American desert is trying to invent teleportation but stumbles into a wormhole that only sends the transported back in time to the year 1375 and a village in France during the brutal 100 Years' War.
The actors making up the principle groups of story characters, the oily and secretive tech guys, the erstwhile archaeology students who get caught up in the tech guys' invention, and the, of course, late medieval English and French combatants the first two groups both travel back in time to encounter, are well-cast and well--directed by Richard Donner. Particular supporting role standouts here are Marton Csokas as Decker, David Thewlis as Doniger and Michael Sheen as 'Lord Oliver.' Anna Friel is perfectly medieval and ladylike yet attractively modern as Lady Clare, and Neal McDonough and Matt Craven post terrific performances as the wayward tech firm's henchmen.
What gets left out from the book, what really has to get left out unless Donner et al were to pull a Peter Jackson and stretch Timeline into three films, is the trove of rich, textured, historical detail about virtually every aspect of the little French village and castle combination that the story circles around. The book is, indeed, better than the film, simply because Crichton's historical fiction writing work on all things 'Aquitainian' in Timeline equals or exceeds anything Bernard Cornwell or Tom Clancy have ever put out in terms of nourishing minutiae. But you can't competently get all that in inside a 2 hour film.
With the exception of a few scenes where a character here and there is "run through" with a broadsword, Timeline is almost a family- friendly film, something that young people and the mature crowd can enjoy together. Almost, parents, screen it first.
Most Crichton fans have never heard of or read Timeline, and most Richard Donner, Paul Walker, and Gerard Butler fans have never seen this very solid little 2003 film. Hopefully those oversights are rectified as time moves forward, because Timeline is an underrated film based on a very underrated book, and that means it deserves an audience.
- FloodClearwater
- Oct 1, 2015
- Permalink
I really enjoyed Richard Donner's Timeline, despite some bad reviews and an awful reputation. It's based on a book by the great Michael Crichton, and centers around what is one of the most fascinating and enjoyable premises out there: time travel. There's nothing like a time travel flick, in any way, shape or form. I'm a sucker for them. This one starts off with an archaeological dig somewhere in England, leading to the abrupt discovery of forces that allow a wormhole in time to be used, sending people back to the middle ages. Paul Walker discovers that his researcher father (Billy Connolly) has made the leap back in time, and may be in trouble. Along with his sort of girlfriend (Frances O Connor) and his father's friend (Gerard Butler) they venture back to find him, and of course everything goes wrong. They land smack in the middle of a skirmish between a poncy English lord (Michael Sheen) and the leader of the French faction (Lambert Wilson), with no identities, nothing to defend themselves with and not a clue what to do. Back home in our time (or, rather, 2003. Time flies, don't it?), the head of the program responsible for harnessing the wormhole's power (a slimy David Thewlis) is a greedy prick who can't really be trusted with the technology, prompting the suspicion of his assistant (Matt Craven). Walker, Butler and company are now faced with a full on castle siege that's quite the dandy set piece, forced to take up arms and fight for their lives as well as a way home. Walker is amusingly out of place in a medieval setting but it works considering the plot. Butler is terrific, bringing his old world style to a character arc that is lovely to see play out. Connolly, although not in the film that much, lights up the screen with his genial kindness and likability that he brings to every film. Neal McDonough, Anna Friel and Marton Csokas also costar. It's simply an adventure piece that doesn't think logistics too much, and in turn doesn't require you to do so either. Underrated stuff.
- NateWatchesCoolMovies
- Jul 17, 2016
- Permalink
There's a reason why time travel has remained a staple of science-fiction for more than a century - human beings will always be curious about the past as well as the future. To be able to fix past mistakes with the advantage of hindsight or to know what to expect in the years to come are basic human desires common to everyone.
The producers of "Timeline" may have benefited from owning a time machine. If they had taken a ride in Marty McFly's DeLorean they might have been able to prevent the mistakes in casting and scripting and made something that lives up to the idea's potential.
An archeological team led by Professor Edward Johnston (Billy Connolly) is excavating the ruins of Castlegard, site of a medieval battle between the French and the British during the Hundred Year War. Johnston's son Chris (Paul Walker) is visiting, a man not interested in the past but in getting closer to his father's assistant Kate Erikson (Frances O'Connor).
Trouble arises when Professor Johnston goes to his benefactor, the International Technology Corporation, to get more funds and information about why they are so interested in Castlegard. When he does not return Chris, accompanied with Kate, historian and medieval weapons expert Andre Marek (Gerard Butler), physics expert Dave Stern (Ethan Embry) and Francois (Rossif Sutherland) head to the company headquarters to figure out where Johnston has gone.
It seems ITC, lead by Robert Doniger (David Thewlis), has stumbled onto a worm hole that leads back to 1357 while trying to perfect teleportation. Professor Johnston went back to see the era first-hand but got stuck there, and now his students must go back to rescue him. However, there's a catch, the group must collect him in six hours, otherwise they'll be stuck in the 14th century forever.
The movie could have been great had the filmmakers taken more time to examine its premise, but as it stands the plot is just mechanical. Once in the past the group just goes from one incident to another in a single-minded goal of rescuing Johnston.
There is no moment of wonder at the medieval world or any insights that looking into the past might reveal to 21st century travelers throughout the film. The visitors' knowledge of the area and upcoming battle do indeed come in handy, but they use this information only to survive and not to learn anything worthwhile.
The movie certainly looks good, with some fine attention to period details. The clothing and buildings look authentic, though the people inhabiting them are a bit cleaner then they would have been. The siege on the castle is also well filmed with trebuchets and catapults launching flaming bombs at Castlegard.
However, for a movie about survival and battle, everything is handled apathetically. The characters seem to be going through the motions when delivering their lines and there isn't much tension in the fight scenes. It adds up to a boring action movie, and boring is one thing an action movie should never be.
It's also funny to see a film so selective about being authentic, such as making it a point that modern people should not carry modern equipment with them to influence history, but having medieval characters speak modern versions of English and French. It's also a strange that the movie takes sides, portraying the English as evil tyrannts and the French as noble defenders of their home. In reality, both sides were ruthless during that era.
As an actor, Walker comes off as a poor man's Keanu Reeves. You read that right - Walker makes Reeves look like a nuanced performer by comparison. He shouts lines with little conviction and acts like a dork through most of the film.
In fact, with the exception or Butler's Marek, it seems like amateur night in the acting department. A scene where O'Connors' Kate breaks down crying will have people laughing. Even Embry, normally an okay actor, gives an unmoving performance. His character stays behind in the present and comes off as the "self-righteous scientist" who squares off against Thewlis' heartless business man, a typical feature of this movie type.
Director Richard Donner once made great movies like "Superman" and "Lethal Weapon" but can't rescue this mess. It's been five years since he's done a movie, and he seems rusty. The camerawork and set design are both excellent though, and belong in a better movie.
Like most stories by Michael Crichton, "Timeline" makes scientists into noble humanitarians and corporate heads into greedy slime to create artificial drama, and it comes off as exploitive pabulum that detracts from where the attention should be, on the action.
Since the action isn't good, what's left is a story where the heroes cry, complain and act selfishly while the movie tries to convince us that they're intriguing characters we should care about. "Timeline" is a wholly forgettable experience, and memories of the movie will be teleported out of the minds of the audience not long after leaving the theater.
Five out of ten stars. Just stick to the "Lethal Weapon" series Mr. Donner, and Mr. Crichton, please exhibit caution before letting another one of your novels be ruined with a horrible on screen versions (but then, you haven't had a good reputation of doing that).
The producers of "Timeline" may have benefited from owning a time machine. If they had taken a ride in Marty McFly's DeLorean they might have been able to prevent the mistakes in casting and scripting and made something that lives up to the idea's potential.
An archeological team led by Professor Edward Johnston (Billy Connolly) is excavating the ruins of Castlegard, site of a medieval battle between the French and the British during the Hundred Year War. Johnston's son Chris (Paul Walker) is visiting, a man not interested in the past but in getting closer to his father's assistant Kate Erikson (Frances O'Connor).
Trouble arises when Professor Johnston goes to his benefactor, the International Technology Corporation, to get more funds and information about why they are so interested in Castlegard. When he does not return Chris, accompanied with Kate, historian and medieval weapons expert Andre Marek (Gerard Butler), physics expert Dave Stern (Ethan Embry) and Francois (Rossif Sutherland) head to the company headquarters to figure out where Johnston has gone.
It seems ITC, lead by Robert Doniger (David Thewlis), has stumbled onto a worm hole that leads back to 1357 while trying to perfect teleportation. Professor Johnston went back to see the era first-hand but got stuck there, and now his students must go back to rescue him. However, there's a catch, the group must collect him in six hours, otherwise they'll be stuck in the 14th century forever.
The movie could have been great had the filmmakers taken more time to examine its premise, but as it stands the plot is just mechanical. Once in the past the group just goes from one incident to another in a single-minded goal of rescuing Johnston.
There is no moment of wonder at the medieval world or any insights that looking into the past might reveal to 21st century travelers throughout the film. The visitors' knowledge of the area and upcoming battle do indeed come in handy, but they use this information only to survive and not to learn anything worthwhile.
The movie certainly looks good, with some fine attention to period details. The clothing and buildings look authentic, though the people inhabiting them are a bit cleaner then they would have been. The siege on the castle is also well filmed with trebuchets and catapults launching flaming bombs at Castlegard.
However, for a movie about survival and battle, everything is handled apathetically. The characters seem to be going through the motions when delivering their lines and there isn't much tension in the fight scenes. It adds up to a boring action movie, and boring is one thing an action movie should never be.
It's also funny to see a film so selective about being authentic, such as making it a point that modern people should not carry modern equipment with them to influence history, but having medieval characters speak modern versions of English and French. It's also a strange that the movie takes sides, portraying the English as evil tyrannts and the French as noble defenders of their home. In reality, both sides were ruthless during that era.
As an actor, Walker comes off as a poor man's Keanu Reeves. You read that right - Walker makes Reeves look like a nuanced performer by comparison. He shouts lines with little conviction and acts like a dork through most of the film.
In fact, with the exception or Butler's Marek, it seems like amateur night in the acting department. A scene where O'Connors' Kate breaks down crying will have people laughing. Even Embry, normally an okay actor, gives an unmoving performance. His character stays behind in the present and comes off as the "self-righteous scientist" who squares off against Thewlis' heartless business man, a typical feature of this movie type.
Director Richard Donner once made great movies like "Superman" and "Lethal Weapon" but can't rescue this mess. It's been five years since he's done a movie, and he seems rusty. The camerawork and set design are both excellent though, and belong in a better movie.
Like most stories by Michael Crichton, "Timeline" makes scientists into noble humanitarians and corporate heads into greedy slime to create artificial drama, and it comes off as exploitive pabulum that detracts from where the attention should be, on the action.
Since the action isn't good, what's left is a story where the heroes cry, complain and act selfishly while the movie tries to convince us that they're intriguing characters we should care about. "Timeline" is a wholly forgettable experience, and memories of the movie will be teleported out of the minds of the audience not long after leaving the theater.
Five out of ten stars. Just stick to the "Lethal Weapon" series Mr. Donner, and Mr. Crichton, please exhibit caution before letting another one of your novels be ruined with a horrible on screen versions (but then, you haven't had a good reputation of doing that).
- filmbuff-36
- Dec 13, 2003
- Permalink
Sorry, the book had so much potential to be turned into an awesome film. But this low-budget crap with pathetic screenplay, well, kinda dishonored Crichton. All the book-to-film changes (Yes, all!) slowly destroyed the film. Paul walker looks fine like Chris but he cannot act; and Frances O'Connor is a fine actress but the role of Kate isn't for her. Gerard Butler on the other hand might be one good thing in the whole film. The multiverse-travel scene is a total disaster. The character development of the lead people, and also Doniger, is left behind which took away much taste from the story.
Reading the book is more recommended.
Reading the book is more recommended.
Just watch and enjoy the movie. It's packed with good actors and great battle scenes. Stop the false negative reviews which are mainly written by book readers upset that it deviates from the book written by Michael Crichton.
Richard Donner brought his action magic directing this film. Just watch it and enjoy it for what it is! I'm glad I saw this in 2003 before reading the review sites like now that give it a low review. I would have missed it having judged it being rated under 6 stars.
It's one of those gems of a good movie that got a very false and fallacious review mostly by book fans upset not falling the book to detail. Just watch it. Don't listen to the misperception of reviews.
Richard Donner brought his action magic directing this film. Just watch it and enjoy it for what it is! I'm glad I saw this in 2003 before reading the review sites like now that give it a low review. I would have missed it having judged it being rated under 6 stars.
It's one of those gems of a good movie that got a very false and fallacious review mostly by book fans upset not falling the book to detail. Just watch it. Don't listen to the misperception of reviews.
TimeLine the book is probably one of my most favourite books. I have read it countless times and have enjoyed it every single time. So I was very happy when I saw a preview a long while back that there was going to be a movie about the book.
I wish that when people decided to make a movie out of a book they would make the movie just like the book. Don't change the plot, don't change the characters or their relationships, just leave it intact. They never do. I have been disappointed every time a book that I enjoy has been brought to the screen. I really don't know why I keep getting excited.
Ok, I understand somewhat that you can't re-create everything from a book. It just wouldn't be feasible. But they changed entire genders of people, removed some more interesting moments, changed character relationships slightly, and totally bombed at all the stuff dealing with the ITC, time travel and the vileness of both bad guys.
If you have read the book and seen the movie, you know what I am talking about. Some of the more exciting parts of the book were just not in the movie, like the struggle between the crazed man at the chapel, the fight at the mill and the entire tournament.
I mean I was confused with the whole thing. One of Donnigers right hand men is supposed to be a woman, Chris is NOT the professors son (in the book he is father figure), the French guy that gets killed in the movie does not exist in the book, Marek is supposed to be fluent in all aspects of time period including the languages.
I could go on about all the differences between the book and the movie, but there is no point. I would have to use up an entire screen just to point them out. It was a interesting movie if you had NOT read the book. However, if you have read the book and enjoyed it, a lot of great stuff was left out or warped into something different. I would say that the movie is very loosely based on the book, VERY loosely.
Overall I say I was disappointed. I did enjoy Gerard Butler as Marek, Ethan Embry as David Stern and Paul Walker as Chris. The females leads (Frances O'Connor as Kate and Anna Friel as Lady Claire) could have been better. And I suppose Billy Connoly did an ok job as the professor, although I just didn't quite believe that he was a professor for some reason.
I think I'll go re-read the book.
I wish that when people decided to make a movie out of a book they would make the movie just like the book. Don't change the plot, don't change the characters or their relationships, just leave it intact. They never do. I have been disappointed every time a book that I enjoy has been brought to the screen. I really don't know why I keep getting excited.
Ok, I understand somewhat that you can't re-create everything from a book. It just wouldn't be feasible. But they changed entire genders of people, removed some more interesting moments, changed character relationships slightly, and totally bombed at all the stuff dealing with the ITC, time travel and the vileness of both bad guys.
If you have read the book and seen the movie, you know what I am talking about. Some of the more exciting parts of the book were just not in the movie, like the struggle between the crazed man at the chapel, the fight at the mill and the entire tournament.
I mean I was confused with the whole thing. One of Donnigers right hand men is supposed to be a woman, Chris is NOT the professors son (in the book he is father figure), the French guy that gets killed in the movie does not exist in the book, Marek is supposed to be fluent in all aspects of time period including the languages.
I could go on about all the differences between the book and the movie, but there is no point. I would have to use up an entire screen just to point them out. It was a interesting movie if you had NOT read the book. However, if you have read the book and enjoyed it, a lot of great stuff was left out or warped into something different. I would say that the movie is very loosely based on the book, VERY loosely.
Overall I say I was disappointed. I did enjoy Gerard Butler as Marek, Ethan Embry as David Stern and Paul Walker as Chris. The females leads (Frances O'Connor as Kate and Anna Friel as Lady Claire) could have been better. And I suppose Billy Connoly did an ok job as the professor, although I just didn't quite believe that he was a professor for some reason.
I think I'll go re-read the book.
The movie is pretty exhilarating and intriguing despite any flaws! Cast is great, writing is good enough, and the entertainment is incredible to me. I saw this movie when I was much younger enjoyed a fair bit then. I didn't realize Timeline is based off a book most prefer the book I appreciate visuals more.
- UniqueParticle
- Mar 31, 2021
- Permalink
The premise of "Timeline" is time travel, a concept that has beguiled most of us. That the movie may be flawed in comparison with the book did not diminish its enjoyment for me. The excellent cast and romantic developments add to its success. Some writers have found fault with this adaptation. I am not one of them. It's well worth a watch, especially if you are a romantic at heart.
- barbarazuck
- Feb 2, 2020
- Permalink
So many important plot elements were left out, that the phrase 'sort of based on an idea by Michael Crichton' is the closest you can get to a relationship to the novel. The most glaring omission is the lack of the radio 'transceivers', which, if you've read the book, were involved in a major plot twist. And, they could have at least made SOME attempt to have the characters speak in 14th century (sounding) languages and used subtitles to give it a more authentic feel. On a positive note, the acting and casting were reasonably good. The action/fighting sequences were done well.
Overall, the movie gave me the feeling that, as so often happens, the producers used the phrase "no one will notice" way too often during meetings.
Overall, the movie gave me the feeling that, as so often happens, the producers used the phrase "no one will notice" way too often during meetings.
As some of you might have noticed, the big crux of this film is the Michael Crichton novel it was based on. The book "Timeline" (or "Tijdlijn" in Dutch) is a very entertaining novel about the concept of traveling through time and a large company known as ITC trying to make money out of it. It packs a lot of action and tries to explain the issues surrounding time travel well enough. So anyone who read the book and liked it... SHOULD STAY THE HECK AWAY from this movie, because there's a big chance it turns out as a big disappointment.
Why? Because the movie tries to simplify the plot and put a big emphasis on action. Away with the part about ITC working on a way ter commercialize time travel. Let's just say they erm... discovered it by accident! Also throw out that part about speaking Old English and Aquitanian language in the 14th Century. Let's just say they all speak fluently English and/or French. In the book the only persons who could literally understand the people in 1357 were Marek and Edward Jones. The others had to use a special earpiece with a translator inside. But that's too difficult, so let's throw in someone else who DOES speak French. Oh and that storyline surrounding Lady Claire is much too complicated. Let's cut out Guy de Malagant (who tries to marry her in the book) and just make her Arnaut's sister. And whatever you do, don't let Chris get too close to her (in the book it was Chris who met Lady Claire first and falls in love with her, but she liked Marek more)
Then the characters: the talents of Billy Connolly (Edward Jones), David Thewlis (Robert Doniger) and Frances O'Connor (Kate Ericson) are totally wasted. And I refuse ter comment on Paul "2 Fast 2 Bloody Furious" Walker as Chris Johnston. Nondedju, what a bloody plank of an actor he is! I'm more satisfied with Gerard Butler as André Marek, although I didn't like the fact his nationality was changed (Marek was a Dutchman in the book). Also doing a good job more or less were Marton Csokas and Anna Friel. Friel is looking very good as Lady Claire and Csokas has far too less screen time to properly portray Robert De Kere (or Rob Deckard as called in the book).
Simplifying the plot of the book ter make it look good on screen actually made this film look bad. It might offer some entertainment if you never heard of the book, but if you read the book, then don't go see this movie!
Rating: 2/10 (It was pretty terrible)
--------------------------------------------
The Path chosen is never a trampled Road
Why? Because the movie tries to simplify the plot and put a big emphasis on action. Away with the part about ITC working on a way ter commercialize time travel. Let's just say they erm... discovered it by accident! Also throw out that part about speaking Old English and Aquitanian language in the 14th Century. Let's just say they all speak fluently English and/or French. In the book the only persons who could literally understand the people in 1357 were Marek and Edward Jones. The others had to use a special earpiece with a translator inside. But that's too difficult, so let's throw in someone else who DOES speak French. Oh and that storyline surrounding Lady Claire is much too complicated. Let's cut out Guy de Malagant (who tries to marry her in the book) and just make her Arnaut's sister. And whatever you do, don't let Chris get too close to her (in the book it was Chris who met Lady Claire first and falls in love with her, but she liked Marek more)
Then the characters: the talents of Billy Connolly (Edward Jones), David Thewlis (Robert Doniger) and Frances O'Connor (Kate Ericson) are totally wasted. And I refuse ter comment on Paul "2 Fast 2 Bloody Furious" Walker as Chris Johnston. Nondedju, what a bloody plank of an actor he is! I'm more satisfied with Gerard Butler as André Marek, although I didn't like the fact his nationality was changed (Marek was a Dutchman in the book). Also doing a good job more or less were Marton Csokas and Anna Friel. Friel is looking very good as Lady Claire and Csokas has far too less screen time to properly portray Robert De Kere (or Rob Deckard as called in the book).
Simplifying the plot of the book ter make it look good on screen actually made this film look bad. It might offer some entertainment if you never heard of the book, but if you read the book, then don't go see this movie!
Rating: 2/10 (It was pretty terrible)
--------------------------------------------
The Path chosen is never a trampled Road
I must admit I enjoyed watching this movie just for the insane lineup of future stars. There is a battle scene here that is worth skipping to if you're not into a teen movie. Truly awesome, big budget. The locations were idyllic. The 14th century was authentic. It is definitely a young teens movie to my mind, with no swearing, bizarro science, love's arrow striking twice, plenty of action but no blood, lots of close calls and clear-cut good guys vs bad. Super-dooper.
- robertemerald
- Mar 19, 2019
- Permalink
I must admit, Paul Walker being listed as a lead did rather turn me off from this movie. As far as I can tell, he's almost Keanu Reeves caliber in terms of being chosen solely for looks and not for any ability whatsoever. However, my intense respect for Gerard Butler's little recognized talent, and having nothing to do, led me to renting this movie tonight. I must say, I had a good time. The plot wasn't really followed through in many points, and there were a few really glaringly off moments. But it was fun. And that's what it was meant to be, fun. So as long as you keep in mind that this movie is not up there to win any academy award's and just relax in the entertainment potential in has, you'll have a great time. However, Paul Walker is still nothing more than an attractive face.
- Gabbiegurl222
- Mar 31, 2005
- Permalink
This is the worst movie-from-book that I've ever seen! While they did a pretty good job filming Jurassic Park, the seriously messed up with Timeline (same author). So, I would suggest you watch this movie before you read the book, otherwise the lack of "fanta-realism" and the differences between book & movie will be too irritating.
Some people blame the fact that you have to put a 300 pages book into a 2 hour film, but Jurassic Park did fine and, thou the theme is totally different, the writing / plot style is pretty the same. It would be acceptable if the techniques used in the book would be taken seriously! I mean, replacing the whole quantum physics idea with a simple "wormhole that can only be found by accident"? Oh please! In the book they tested everything for a dozen times and they had like 3 versions of the machine! There even was a backup plan! So besides this lack of believable technology, you have the "history plot"... English soldiers that start chasing 5 peasants in a crowd of like 500 peasants with this reason "Hey, why aren't you packing yet?".
+ What's with the language? Everyone in the movie is capable of speaking both English and french... except the main characters! Somehow they only understand English. Even the "pure french people" seem to be able to understand English :p Why didn't they do some research (why research, it's all in the book) on the languages? Why didn't they at least try to simulate some kind of medieval scene? This one is definitely one for my "worst movies ever" list.
But, don't get me wrong! The books is extremely strong! Read it!
(sorry for bad English but my native language is dutch...)
Some people blame the fact that you have to put a 300 pages book into a 2 hour film, but Jurassic Park did fine and, thou the theme is totally different, the writing / plot style is pretty the same. It would be acceptable if the techniques used in the book would be taken seriously! I mean, replacing the whole quantum physics idea with a simple "wormhole that can only be found by accident"? Oh please! In the book they tested everything for a dozen times and they had like 3 versions of the machine! There even was a backup plan! So besides this lack of believable technology, you have the "history plot"... English soldiers that start chasing 5 peasants in a crowd of like 500 peasants with this reason "Hey, why aren't you packing yet?".
+ What's with the language? Everyone in the movie is capable of speaking both English and french... except the main characters! Somehow they only understand English. Even the "pure french people" seem to be able to understand English :p Why didn't they do some research (why research, it's all in the book) on the languages? Why didn't they at least try to simulate some kind of medieval scene? This one is definitely one for my "worst movies ever" list.
But, don't get me wrong! The books is extremely strong! Read it!
(sorry for bad English but my native language is dutch...)
Timeline is not a great movie, but not as terrible as the critics would have you believe. True, it is not completely faithful to the book, but what movie is? Timeline has enough action and adventure to make up for the plot holes and casting mistakes-Billy Connolly as an archeology professor, please! And Paul Walker as his son? Yeah, right! However, Gerard Butler as Marek and Anna Friel both do a credible job with the script, such as it is. Bottom line, an enjoyable action movie for those not expecting a masterpiece. 6/10.
This is a truly awful adaptation of Michael Crichton's novel Timeline. The book itself is not as strong as Jurassic Park or Prey; it reads like an overenthusiastic action thriller movie, which is a bit shallow for a book, but should make a great basis for an overenthusiastic action thriller movie.
The movie is rushed, shallow, poorly acted, almost totally dis-joined from the story of the book, and whereas the book stretches credibility at times, the movie totally crushes suspension of disbelief.
Crichton's book has well fleshed out, if somewhat annoying characters, more-or-less believable relationships, solid pseudo-physics, solid pseudo-history and at its core a good 'what-if?' story. There are enough extraneous bits to the story to allow it to be pared down to a good 2-hr movie without damaging the basic story or premise.
The movie plays like a high school theatresports troupe ad-libbing their way through Hamlet having read the play once. And the sets aren't much better. It completely misses many of Crichton's best points, and is thoroughly ham-fisted with the few plot elements it retains.
I wasn't expecting a masterpiece, but this was painful.
The movie is rushed, shallow, poorly acted, almost totally dis-joined from the story of the book, and whereas the book stretches credibility at times, the movie totally crushes suspension of disbelief.
Crichton's book has well fleshed out, if somewhat annoying characters, more-or-less believable relationships, solid pseudo-physics, solid pseudo-history and at its core a good 'what-if?' story. There are enough extraneous bits to the story to allow it to be pared down to a good 2-hr movie without damaging the basic story or premise.
The movie plays like a high school theatresports troupe ad-libbing their way through Hamlet having read the play once. And the sets aren't much better. It completely misses many of Crichton's best points, and is thoroughly ham-fisted with the few plot elements it retains.
I wasn't expecting a masterpiece, but this was painful.
- misonoperso
- Sep 21, 2008
- Permalink
Okay...let's put aside the whole Paul Walker can't act thing. This movie was good. I liked it. I'm sure that some quantum physics geek somewhere is saying that they screwed up the space time continuum...that the Einstein-Rosenberg bridge (or whatever it's called) is not to be taken lightly...but the fact remains that this film was entertaining. Unfortunately, I read the book. I don't know why I continue to do that, because they never get it right. The worst part is, I read the book AFTER I watched the movie. But, I have put the book aside and have judged only the movie as it was. And it was fun. It was entertaining. Sure, there were some big-time changes made to history, but it's a movie. It isn't real life. It's not supposed to be. Movies are ways to escape, and this film lets the viewer do just that...except that Paul Walker can't act.
7*
7*
- kendallphoenix
- Nov 22, 2004
- Permalink
I've read time line twice and its amazing. i don't understand how the film could have such poor production,the effects and sets were terrible! on its own its a poor film but if you've read the book its Even worse. i don't think the people who made it had ever read the book as the story is not right, so much of the plot was left out or ignored. Also the character relationships are often wrong (for example between Chris and prof Johnston) and there are extra characters (who is Francois dontelle?). there are also two female characters in the book which are for some reason male in the film (Steven Kramer is meant to be Diane Kramer, jimmy Gomez is also a woman in the book! worst of all they changed the ending! i waited 6 months to see this film and it was terrible, if your not going do something properly don't do it!!!! Also id like to suggest the makers read the book!!! they may relies what a crap film they made.
- fluffy_purple_handcuffs
- Nov 14, 2004
- Permalink
I truly enjoyed this movie. It really isn't as bad as most of the reviews I've read make it out to be. It was not horrible or a waste of time. I rented it first and liked it so much I bought it. I'd recommend it for anyone who enjoys Sci-Fi movies for their entertainment value. I haven't read the book, so I can't make any comparisons. I think the whole story came together smoothly. Overall the acting was good, however Paul Walker would probably benefit from a few more classes. Gerard Butler was awesome in his role as Marek. I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot him in the future (no pun intended). I loved the beginning, the end, and everything in between. I give it a strong 8.
- phoebes_jeebies
- Mar 6, 2005
- Permalink
I've read the book more than once, and completely understand Michael Crichton's objections to this film adaptation. I also understand why so many who enjoyed the book feel the same way.
But, a film adaptation is a film first and an adaptation second. As an adventure epic with a science fiction foundation, it's not that bad. The pacing is adequate, the character development sufficient to engender interest in the various players' fates and the overall cinematography journeyman proficient.
If you have a few hours on a rainy day, and haven't read the book, have at it, and enjoy!
- leitmotif3
- Mar 5, 2021
- Permalink
An archaeological outfit formed by young students (Paul Walker, Frances O'Connor , Gerard Butler and others) using a time machine go back to ¨100 years war¨ where starring's father (Billy Connolly) before had gone and lost .
The protagonist group will have to confront deal of dangers and adventures and will fight between English and French army . As a group of medieval re-enactors were used for soldiers in battle sequences . The crew of the movie visited various European castles from around that period , the late 1300s , to make the castles and towns look as realistic as possible.
The runtime film is adjusted about hundred minutes and for that reason isn't boring , neither tiring . The movie blends action , historical events , suspense , medieval battles and is enough amusing . The picture didn't fail at the box office but wasn't a real success either . From the start until the ending the action and the fast-moving is continued but there is a wrong pace . The picture is partially based on historical events ; however , the battle of Castlegard is not an actual historical deed . Very good cast such as Gerard Butler , though Pierce Brosnan turned down the role of Andre Marek ; in addition , Paul Walker , David Tweliss , Anna Friel and a beautiful Frances O'Connor .
Brian Tyler's musical score is outstanding and nice cinematography by expert cameraman Caleb Deschanel . Direction by Richard Donner is average , in spite of a lot of good films he has directed . The picture will appeal historical period buffs and battles lovers . Rating 5,5 /10 , mediocre .
The protagonist group will have to confront deal of dangers and adventures and will fight between English and French army . As a group of medieval re-enactors were used for soldiers in battle sequences . The crew of the movie visited various European castles from around that period , the late 1300s , to make the castles and towns look as realistic as possible.
The runtime film is adjusted about hundred minutes and for that reason isn't boring , neither tiring . The movie blends action , historical events , suspense , medieval battles and is enough amusing . The picture didn't fail at the box office but wasn't a real success either . From the start until the ending the action and the fast-moving is continued but there is a wrong pace . The picture is partially based on historical events ; however , the battle of Castlegard is not an actual historical deed . Very good cast such as Gerard Butler , though Pierce Brosnan turned down the role of Andre Marek ; in addition , Paul Walker , David Tweliss , Anna Friel and a beautiful Frances O'Connor .
Brian Tyler's musical score is outstanding and nice cinematography by expert cameraman Caleb Deschanel . Direction by Richard Donner is average , in spite of a lot of good films he has directed . The picture will appeal historical period buffs and battles lovers . Rating 5,5 /10 , mediocre .