Time Machine

[Nerath]

Anyone here seen the Time Machine? Not the ancient version of the movie-ization, but the 2002 one. Some people are criticizing it for butchering the book (which, in terms of plot line, it did), but I think it's good when not compared to the book. What do you guys think?

[TonyG2]

Personally I enjoyed it apart from the OTT acting of Jeremy Irons as the UberMorlock...

As a Brit, I could get all huffy about the setting being moved to America. But it didn't spoil the movie. In any event the original movie version didn't exactly follow the novel either.

Orlando Jones was pretty good as the library computer and the destruction of the moon was a pretty decent effect.

Yep

OK movie. Not great but not bad.

[Cherel]

I've not read the book, but I like the film. It's not a masterpiece, but It's not bad at all.

[Nerath]

I thought the Uber-Morlock was quite possibly the coolest character in the entire movie. Not to mention his voice rocked (Jeremy Irons also played Scar from the Lion King. I love his suave voice.). OTT? What does that mean? I assumed it meant "over the top" or something like that. I thought Jeremy Irons acted very well, but then again I'm never a judge. I like movies that other people are like, "What? It was horrible! The acting was so bad" and I'm there saying, "Really? I didn't notice at all."

I also thought he had some of the coolest lines. "We all have our time machines. Those that take us back are memories. Those that carry us forward are dreams."

I thought the passing-of-time effect was very cool, like the vines growing around the greenhouse and dying off and such. New York seriously is going to look like they made it look in 2030...there will be no 1-story buildings at all. If there still are any now.

Speaking of books-turned-movies in general...one can't expect any movie to fully follow the book. I don't see why the degree of similarity concerns people. Usually, they're more like a movie inspired by the book, rather than a movie OF the book.

[Cherel]

About book to film conversions... Have you read The Lost World by Michael Crichton? Have you seen The Lost World (Jurassic Park 2)

The book was very good! However, the film was not related to the book at all (T-Rex walking through the city, like Godzila) It followed the book at the beginning only, and it was not accurate at all. I mean, it was a very boring and silly movie, while the book was very, very good.

A very dissapointing movie, but a very good book.

[TonyG2]

Alot of Book to Film conversions are pretty awful. As are game to film...

Ever see Dungeons & Dragons movie. Now there is an example of Jeremy Irons really OTT. And yes that is Over The Top. Hamming it up. Chewing the scenery. However you phrase it ;D

But Super Mario Brothers the Movie! Resident Evil!!

Even Wing Commander (actually I quite liked the movie) tanked.

As for Michael Crichton. Only The Andromeda Strain was a decent adaptation. As for "Timeline". More like waste of time....

That said. I have to admit I quite liked the movie Congo.... OK I know it was dumb. Talking Gorillas etc. But it was entertaining. And a good soundtrack.

[TheGlove]

it was pretty good

talking about gorillas, king kong will have a remake soon doesnt ?

[Nerath]

It seems to me that I like movies that generally get bad reviews for some reason. Timeline rocked to me. I thought it was just great. I also loved Super Mario Bros. It had no accuracy, but I really didn't care.

I'll agree that the Lost World stunk, but I just didn't like the movie. I've never even read the book.

People really shouldn't go to movies looking for an incarnation of the book. I mean, it's just not going to happen. I really think people hate some movies just because of the accuracy factor, which I think shouldn't be a factor at all. These games- and books-turned-movies probably would be viewed in a better light if people stopped comparing them to their sources. Of course they're not going to be as good as the original. Someone name me one that is, because I can't think of one that's exactly equal as the original source.

I once made a mental list of everything different about Jurassic Park 1 than the book, and here are the major ones that come to mind, since I haven't seen the movie nor read the book in forever.

--Ian Malcolm dies. So why is he in The Lost World for the movie, anyway?
--John Hammond dies.
--Lex and Tim reverse places in the transition. In the book, Lex was the little kid, and Tim was the smart, older one. Why they reversed it, beats me. Maybe some weird feminist thing? (Not that it bothers me )
--Instead of Grant killing the raptors, like in the book, the T-Rex comes in to create a marvelous deux ex machina (saving force from beyond that has no relation to the characters' actions) and save everyone's lives. I do know why they made this -- they thought the audience would not like it if the T-Rex didn't come back one last time. I have a making-of video for the movie.

JP also has a lot of mistakes in the shooting, such as the biggest one, which is the T-rex standing on solid ground, then a car flying down a cliff through the same area the T-rex once stood on.

My point is, no one cares about all that above. Most consider JP a masterpiece, or at least an awesome movie. So I'm wondering what happened with these other movies.

I don't even know what constitutes OTT. I notice a lack of acting, but too much, I don't notice. I'm loose with my judgment like that. Perhaps that's why I like bad-review movies, because I don't see why they're bad.

Er...in short, I didn't need to rant, but I felt like it. I just want someone to explain to me what you think makes a movie good and bad, because, in total honesty, I really have no idea.

I did not know there was an Andromeda Strain movie. The book was good enough, but I can't see it being a movie without some serious plot rearrangement. The whole book was just too action-less to me, especially to be a movie.

[TheGlove]

the world never was the same again after JP

[Cherel]

It was like SW, a revolutionary film ;D

[Nerath]

I know. But no one has answered my questions yet

[TheGlove]

1- I seen
2- It was cool

[TonyG2]

As I said

Personally I enjoyed it apart from the OTT acting of Jeremy Irons as the UberMorlock...

Which I kinda thought covered the question of whether I had seen it....

[Nerath]

No, I meant the questions in my second gigantic post...

[TonyG2]

Doh!

Where to start.

Well in my personal view OTT acting is pretty much defined by Jeremy Irons as Profion in Dungeons and Dragons. If he chewed the scenery and harder he'd be spitting balsa wood and plaster for weeks.

As for JP and its sequels. I see it like the Matrix. The first was ground breaking in terms of the visuals so it was sort of Ok if the plot diverged slightly from the original JP source material.

As for Ian Malcom surviving in the movie. Probably a Jeff Goldblum contractual thing.....

I agree JP was awsome. So was Armagdedon in its way. or The Core etc. Doesn't necessarily make them "good" movies but they are entertaining.

My pet hate from the series. Aside from the time wasting effort that was JP3 - the boat in JP2. It arrives at San Diego. The TRex is trapped in the hold. Nothing else on board. So what ate the crew? Mice? Raptors of course. But they were cut to reduce the running time and as such the film was even more a farce than it would otherwise have been.

At then end of the day its all about money and the law of diminishing returns. Hollywood will keep churning out sequels until they failk to make any money and then they're gone.

Look at Superman 4. No disrespect to Chris Reeves, but the film stank. Same with Star Trek V although Trek broke the cycle and produced some more half way decent movies.

What makes a movie good or bad. How long is a piece of string? You pays yer money and you takes yer choice.

Totally subjective.

In Hollywood terms its box office and profit. A shite movie is "Good" if it does well.

In terms of a high brow critic, its good if NO ONE WATCHES IT BUT THEM as only they have the wit and intelligence to appreciate it. Then again most high brow critics are arseholes.

At the end of the day, IMHO, a "good" film is one that YOU enjoy. Acting may be crap, special effects do me a favour! etc. But if you like it then its a good film and to hell with wht anyone else thinks.

For example, I liked Van Helsing. Don't know why (well, OK Kate Beckinsale in a tight corset had something to do with it....)

I liked (...forgive me father for I have sinned) the Thunderbirds Movie. I was fully prepared to hate this. I grew UP with Thunderbirds. I am a child of the 60's. It was MINE. And everything I read suggested that Frakes had butchered my childhood. OK so the acting sucked. The Tracy family were cardboard cutouts. Lady Penelope was too young and too sexy (this is probably a freudian problem) and the Hood was too European.

The focus was too much on the kids. Since when did Brains have a son. Since when did Brains know how to........... OK I'm not going to say it but you know what I mean! Tin Tin with psychic powers.... FAB 1 can fly!....

But it was a FUN movie.

And despite being a grumpy old mid 30's curmudgeon I quite like the Harry Potter movies.

I hated Timeline as it just grated. But I did like Tom Seleck in Runaway despite it being corney - the screenplay was by Michael Chricton by the way. (may have had something to do with Gene Simmons being in at as I used to be - emphasise the past tense - a Kiss fan) I didn't really like Spiderman 2. Shrek and Shrek 2 are among the best fims ever.

Go with what YOU like and the hell with the critics and what anyone else thinks.