Reviews written by registered user
oigres

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
12 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Timeline (2003)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Timeline off Line! Read the book FIRST!!!, 9 December 2003
1/10

After reading many of Crichton's books, I was thoroughly disappointed with the movie "Timeline". The book contained many sub-plots and interesting characters not found in the movie. This is one of the many examples of "Holly Weird" butchery when it comes to "book to movie" translations and interpretations. After reading Jurassic Park and then seeing the movie, I realized that you could tear the book in half and you'd have the movie script.

Hollywood is running out of ideas and is desperate to keep the audiences' attention by convoluted original story plots into explosions, meaningless dialogue and unnecessary nudity unto the screen.

For those who are intellectually challenged this movie will appeal, however; for those who want a lot more I recommend reading the book. You won't be faced with lunch bag let down.

16 out of 34 people found the following review useful:
Hollywood misses the point again!!, 20 February 2003
1/10

If you want the real version of this over blown American clown act, watch William Wylers' 1944 version - the true story of the 'Memphis Belle'. It's amazing what Hollywood will do to distort history and mock its' veterans, all for a buck. Well it must be the American way! Younger viewers will be beguiled by the nonsense, however older viewers with some sense of history will recognize this movie for what it is worth. Don't waste your time! However, if you don't want the truth, then put your mind in neutral and watch this movie.

10 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
Lunch bag-let-down, 26 June 2002
1/10

After watching the 1954 version numerous times and having read the novel several times, I was very disappointed with this version. The class, the atmosphere and acting were no where to be found. These days they'll do anything to make a fast buck! Stick to the 54' version, it may be campy but by a longer "league" than this version will ever hope to be.

12 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Brainless Dribble, 8 March 2002
1/10

I too, saw this excuse for a movie in theaters expecting it to be a remake of the 1936 classic. Talk about major lunch-bag let down! The only worth while event of sitting through this insult was listening to the wise-cracks and jocularities coming from the audience. Watching Barry Morse (a fine actor) humiliate himself with contortionistic facial expressions related to an attack of hemorrhoids was laughable! Jack Palance(another fine actor)didn't fair any better with his army of robots looking like walking garbage cans! All in all a complete waste of time. Possibly twenty years from now this might become a cult classic or mercifully disappear out of cinematic history!

19 out of 25 people found the following review useful:
Interesting, but disappointing, 22 December 2000
6/10

Finally saw this movie after many years of eager anticipation only to find myself bored. I have to agree with Maltin's summary of the two-dimensional characterization of the players in this movie. The characters in this movie do nothing more than bicker and argue.

The movie was released in Britain in 1935. A darkening time for Europe was on the horizon with Adolph Hitler's rise to power in Germany. The characters in the movie hint at using the tunnel for uniting the "English" speaking people of the world; not to mention the transportation of armaments to Britain should war break out! Perhaps this movie was supposed to quell the fears of the British by offering an avenue of escapism in the promise of new and revolutionary technology (ie. the Radium Drill!) to avert war.

Never the less the movie does utilize futuristic sets and models that were ahead of their time and still hold their own today. Transportation historians will find this movie interesting. 6.5 out 10.

17 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Tribute to Lieut. Lionel Crabbe, 26 June 2000
10/10

They don't make them like this anymore. Rousing drama action based on the real life exploits of British Navy Lieutenant Lionel Crabbe and his contributions to underwater demolition work during World War II and later on in salvaging operations.

World War II history buffs will appreciate the military technology depicted in this film and the impact it caused to Allied as well as Axis shipping.

Exciting underwater action combined with a decent cast and good dialogue contribute to the suspense.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
American tribute to the R.C.A.F., 15 June 2000
8/10

Yes! This movie is full of cliches; however, from a historical perspective, the movie provides a brief glimpse into a bygone world of Canada's preparation for war in Europe. Aircraft enthusiasts will delight in seeing Harvards and Lockheed Hudsons as well as the bush planes typically used in that era (Otter, Norseman etc some are still flying!).

Listen closely to Air Marshall Billy Bishop's remark to an American pilot receiving his wings, that "Texas is a great province"! Either this was an intended joke or the producers don't know their geography.

20 out of 25 people found the following review useful:
Spoon fed movie goers need not watch, 10 January 2000
9/10

This movie is an underrated gem that has been overlooked by science fiction buffs. The 27th day rates with such films as: The Day The Earth Stood Still and The Thing From Another World. This movie was too cerebral for its' time. It examines the possibility of a superior life form, from another galaxy, providing mankind the power to obliterate life or to salvage life from our planet. The handling of this subject is done with intelligence, a good cast and a decent script.

The movie portrays the constant struggle between good and evil. In this case, with the paranoia of the cold war, the Russians are the ones who seek world domination. All in all a good movie to watch and enjoy. An 8 out of 10!!

12 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
The Robots are Coming!!, 10 January 2000
9/10

When I first viewed this movie,I was 11 years of age. Needless to say I couldn't sleep for a couple of nights. The movie is vintage post-World War II paranoia that has reached cult classic status (see The Astounding B-Monster web site).

All right!! So it isn't hi-tech or academy award winning material, however, the premise is a good story.

So what! The robot looks like a Maytag washer-dryer combo gone mad. Give us a break!! Stop comparing yesterday's movies by today's computer F/X standards. Think (if you can) what it was like in the fifties with no internet, no laptops and no cell phones! And you couldn't trust those Russians! The fifties reached their peak with UFO's sightings and stories and that's what this movie is all about.

Enough said!. Turn the lights down low, make some popcorn and enjoy this movie with a friend, because that robot might just be looking over your shoulder.

8 out of 10.

Imaginative and classic sci-fi!!!, 29 December 1999
10/10

This movie should not be missed. It should be viewed from the the perspective of romance, adventure and pre-Star Wars special effects. Although the movie does not always follow H.G. Well's story (Weena is killed in a fire); it is very entertaining. The workings of the Time Machine are left to the viewer's imagination, something that is sorely missing in today's science fiction movies. Rod Taylor gives an impressive performance as the Time Traveller.The talented supporting cast(Alan Young, Sebastian Cabot, etec) provide authentic atmosphere of the late 1800's.

A remake of this movie would only trivialize this science fiction classic. The way we are "spoon-fed" by today's F/X and digital animation would make you wonder whether we are becoming like the Eloi.


Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]