On January 5, 1900, a disheveled looking H.G. Wells - George to his friends - arrives late to his own dinner party. He tells his guests of his travels in his time machine, the work about which his friends knew. They were also unbelieving, and skeptical of any practical use if it did indeed work. George knew that his machine was stationary in geographic position, but he did not account for changes in what happens over time to that location. He also learns that the machine is not impervious and he is not immune to those who do not understand him or the machine's purpose. George tells his friends that he did not find the Utopian society he so wished had developed. He mentions specifically a civilization several thousand years into the future which consists of the subterranean morlocks and the surface dwelling eloi, who on first glance lead a carefree life. Despite all these issues, love can still bloom over the spread of millennia. Written by
Director George Pal was a close friend of fellow animator Walter Lantz, ever since Lantz did some cut-rate Woody Woodpecker work for Pal's Destination Moon (1950). As tribute, Pal tried to include Woody Woodpecker references in all his subsequent films. In the scenes where the Eloi are having a good time, every so often you can distinctly hear the "Woody Woodpecker" laugh. See more »
In a wide shot in the 1966 scene, a guard in the middle of the frame partly vanishes as he steps backwards (just before the dark-colored Jaguar arrives from the left). This is because the street shots in this scene as well as in that of 1917 are pasted together from different shots and matte backdrops. As a matter of fact, the perspectives don't even match (different angles). See more »
My name is of no consequence. The important thing you should know, is that I am the last who remembers how each of us, man and woman made his own decision. Some chose to take refuge in the great caverns, and find a new way of life far below the earth's surface. The rest of us decided to take our chances in the sunlight. Small as those chances might be.
See more »
I recently saw the 2002 film "The Time Machine" and liked it a great deal, so I thought that it was probably in my best interest to see the 1960 version of "The Time Machine". So, I went ahead and rented it and watched it. I knew that this film was made in 1960, so I wasn't expecting anything spectacular, but I still hoped that it would be good. I must say that I was REALLY impressed with the film! I thought it was great!
The story is brilliantly told, smartly done, and quite interesting. I noticed a great deal of similarities (and differences) between this film and the 2002 version. There was virtually nothing I didn't like about the film, as far as story goes. I'm really interested in reading the H.G. Wells story now, so hopefully in the near future I'll bust out my copy and read it.
I thought the actors in the film did a fantastic job as well! Sadly, I'd never even heard of any of the actors in the film. I thought Rod Taylor, Alan Young and Yvette Mimieux all did a great job. The rest of the cast was good, but these three really struck me as great. Also, I have to say that Yvette is one beautiful woman!
The special effects in this film were surprisingly good, especially for a movie made in 1960! I must admit that I was really impressed with the sets and the special effects in the film.
The only thing that I would complain about, if I had to, is some little things. For instance, the classic "monster about to grab the guy, but then doesn't" sort of thing. Little things like that kind of bothered me, but I realize that it was just the style back then, so I can't really complain about it. Also, I wasn't too terribly impressed with the mouth and face of the Morlocks, but again, given that it was made back in 1960, I can let it slide.
Overall, I really enjoyed the film, and would definitely recommend it to anyone that liked the 2002 version of the film or just enjoys films about time-travel or science fiction. I truly hope that you enjoy the film as much as I do. Thank you for reading,
72 of 87 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?