The Time Machine

[Prankster]

So. It comes out tomorrow. Good? Bad?

Myself, I've been sort of perversely interested for a while...it's a classic SF book, you gotta love Guy Pierce and Jeremy Irons and Orlando Jones, and there's been some cool-looking stuff in trailers and previews (like the clip they showed on Leno a few nights ago, which actually impressed me).

This despite the urgings of my brain to avoid, knowing full well that:

--All the advance reviews have been negative;
--The director went nuts and someone else had to finish it;
--There are some obvious implausibilities just in the ads;
--They've given the Time Traveller a name (probably unavoidable, but still);
--They've done some really stupid-ass stuff like give him a "reason" to invent a time machine that personally affects him.

That one bugs me quite a bit. Why can't movie scientists ever just try to invent or discover something because it opens the door to knowledge or will be of benefit to mankind? Why does it always have to be something they have a personal stake in?

------------------
Visit my site: http://webcomix.keenspace.com

'And the name of that country really tells you where these guys are from.'
--Announcer during the opening ceremonies of the 2000 Olympics

[Smilin' Jack Ruby]

My review should be going up soon (embargoed until tomorrow).

It's fucking negative as all hell.

------------------
"Well, well, I thought. Oh my ears and whiskers!"

[DJ Dylan]

I guess that is a bad sign

[Micah Robinson]

This is the rare time travel film that actually makes the temporal logic of, say, the Planet of the Apes remake look sensible.

So many holes. SO little sense did this film make. And if it was the least bit fun, that'd be fine.

But it was horrid. Insipid score music.

A rare poor overacting job from Pearce (Well, I guess there is Rules of Engagement as well...).

And the worst villain and villain showdown I've seen in AGES. They say Jeremy Irons was on set for only a week. I wonder why it took them even THAT long.

Truly a horrible film all around.

[Rob]

Ugh. Even Mikah hates it. This cannot be good.

[The13th]

I figured it would need a few more supporters, so I double posted.

[This message has been edited by hesterthe13th (edited 03-08-2002).]

[The13th]

I actually liked it quite a bit

Maybe I was just in the mood for a cheesy adventure flick, but I left the theatre pretty satisfied.

I thought Guy Pearce was pretty good and the movie had some good effect shots but overall I just enjoyed the feel of the movie.

It did have its faults (a few holes in the plot and a kind of abrubt ending) but nothing that really hurt my enjoyment of it.

7/10

[VerbalKint]

I'd rather not take the advice of someone (Micah) who didn't even have LOTR in their top ten last year.

I'm seeing this movie no matter what.

[Micah Robinson]

For fuck's sake, Verbal.

Like I'm the lone voice in the wind...

Fucking Smiling Jack hated it. Harry hated it. Ebert hated it. Most critics hate it.

Even the "positive" reviews of it on Rotten Tomatoes shoot the movie full of holes.

But now you're going to start seeing movies I didn't like simply because I didn't cream in my pants for LOTR.

That's brilliant.

Well, Smiling Jack loved LOTR and so did Harry. So did most of those critics.

And in fact, hester, who DID like it, said that LOTR was extremely overrated.

So now what?

I mean, shit....if you want to see it, watch it, but don't use bullshit rationalization like that to permit yourself to do so.

Just when I thought the LOTR fanboy shit had ended....



[This message has been edited by mikah912 (edited 03-08-2002).]

[Martianman]

Ahh, I'm kinda glad we did skip the screening last night. If I want to see a movie, I usually never let negative reviews stop me, but on top of a stack of other things going on, the reviews just added fuel to the fire for us to not go see the screening. I'll be content to wait for DVD to see it.

[God of Thunder]

I am flip flopping all over the damn map on this one. I thought that it was full of holes and very choppy.

At the same time I think it needed to be a little longer. Hester's point about the abrupt ending is right on. I don't think you can tell a story with as much history as this one in an hour and a half without making some sacrifices and those made are very evident.

Pearce is a disappoinment but I thought Samantha Mumba did a decent job with what she had to work with.

Some of the effects were nice, and some of them sucked pants. The Moorlocks are a huge letdown coming on the heels of LOTR and even the apes in POTA as Micah mentioned after the screening.

I guess the biggest problem is that I never got invested in anything on any level so nothing that happened affected me.

[LowShot]

I actually liked Pearce. Wasn't groundbreaking work, but I thought he was decent.

The story is horrible. The score was the most wretched thing I've heard in a long time. The moorlocks were retarded. And most of the acting, including Orlando Jones, was over the top or just plain bad.

Despite all this, I did manage to enjoy parts of it.

[Steve Murphy]

Let me say that this film wasn't NEAR as bad as the Planet of Apes remake. Micah, Andrew and myself hashed this whole thing over dinner afterwards and, while Micah does make good points, I still believe the "logic" used in POTA was so rancid, that nothing can beat it (at least SO FAR).

I enjoyed some of The Time Machine, but in the end it is a very forgettable film, and an absolute waste of a good story and good actor.

And the music was pure shite.

[The13th]

Verbal,

I enjoyed The Time Machine more than Lord of the Rings, so maybe my recommendation isn't one you should take to heart.

[4496]

Yeah, I'm gonna catch "All About The Benjamins" tonite, instead of this. Hope it'll give me a laugh. Anyone seen it?
---------------------------------------------
www.ctmovies.freeservers.com (http://www.ctmovies.freeservers.com)

[This message has been edited by 4496 (edited 03-08-2002).]

[Micah Robinson]

Here's where I'm going to go into detail, so BEWARE OF SPOILERS:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay. By default, there's going to be holes in logic in ANY time travel film, at least as far as the time travel itself goes, and I accept that. Even if I thought the time travel logic here was worst than most, that's not enough reason to write off the movie.

What IS enough reason is the HORRID story by John Logan. They spend the first 40 minutes of the film showing a man obsessed with regaining the love of his life at all costs. He's dedicated years to trying to save her from dying that fateful night that she does.

And when he accidentally wakes up in 802,000 after a bump on the head, he COMPLETELY FORGETS ABOUT THIS WOMAN.

WHY? He was driven before, and now that he accidentally landed in an unfamiliar time, he stops caring?

In fact, why did he even land there to begin with? He's knocked out in his machine as it's going through time. He wakes up and sees that he's way too far in the future.

Does he simply order it to go in reverse to a time he would at least know he'd be safe in, like 1890? Nope. He just hits the brake, and, hoping for the best wherever he wakes up, then passes out.

And even when he gets back to his machine and has the chance to go back and try again for his love, he just goes "Well, I'll leave at some point, but first let me investigate this mystery." This comes after he realizes that he cannot change time. Even if he saves someone from dying, they just die a different way, so nothing he does will have any tangible effect.

And even if it did, if you could change something, wouldn't you rather go back to the past and stop the moon from getting blown up or help stem the tide of over-industrialization, rather than trying to fight some Morlocks at the END OF TIME. Talk about closing the gate after the horses have already left.

But all of that is just a preamble for the wretchedness of Jeremy Irons' part in the film. Irons himself is fine. Has a very cool presence. But his character is introduced and then killed in the SAME SCENE, and he's the main villain of the movie!

I mean, Irons is a powerful enough telepath and telekinetic to make Alexander move across the room, and to make him see whatever he wants to see and to make him dream what he wants him to dream,....yet he can't beat him in a FISTFIGHT?

Yeah.

Then, Alexander turns his machine into a "time bomb" that conviently has a blast radius of only the area necessary to kill all the Morlocks, but not to harm any Eloi or ALexander himself. And so he "changes" the future.

Even worse, Irons says he's one of many. So shouldn't one of the OTHER Uber-Morlocks know what's going on from Irons' thoughts and step in to help?

In fact, if the planet has a race of Morlocks and Uber-Morlocks, then wasn't Pearce killing that one group kind of pointless anyway, since he and the rest of the Eloi would be hunted down by ANOTHER group of Morlocks?

But here's the MAJOR problem. Everyone meant to die should've died that same day ANYWAY, just as his girlfriend did. And when he realized he COULD change something, rather than saving the love of his life, he saves Morlocks he barely knows just to get some from Samantha Mumba?

Worst of all, what nebbish, fidgety scientist in love with machinery and gadgets would willingly strand himself in an Erudite era with no technology to speak of?

Horrid story aside, Pearce is subpar here. He's nothing but silly and googly-eyed until his chick dies, and then he's just boring and immediately forgetful that he ever loved her.

The Morlock creature design is so completely disgustingly awful, that I cannot fathom who saw these things in motion and thought it'd be a good idea to use them.

The score is WRETCHED. Lion King-esque "ethnic" chanting with sub-generic orchestral themes. Gah.

Orlando Jones' character was bearable, and had one moment that gave me a good laugh. But those bright spots were few and far between.

Overall, an absolute travesty. Pearce works frequently enough so that this should just be a minor misstep for him like Rules of Engagement (shudder) was. But Simon Wells should NEVER, EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVER be allowed to direct a live action film....a-gain.

[The13th]

Micah raises some good points but I still enjoyed the flick for what it was.

I enjoyed Pearce and I liked the whole bit about him trying to save his fiancee from dying in the past & why he couldn't.

I thought the reasoning behind him sticking around in the future initially instead of high-tailing it back to his present was pretty clearly his overbearing curiosity. As for him choosing to stick around in the future, I chalked that up to him having nothing left to return to. After realizing he could never save his fiancee, staying in the future and helping rebuild a civilization probably seemed like a more interesting way to live out his life

I didn't think the morlocks were that bad.

I haven't read the source novel nor seen the original film, so that's definitely a factor in my enjoyment of the Time Machine.

[LeeScoresby]

"Why can't movie scientists do things because they open the door to knowledge"...

Sorry about the paraphrasing. The answer to this is simple: Most people don't connect with an intellectual journey, they need a human interest element to hang on to. This is especially the case when it comes to a picture that requires a large suspension of belief. For many people (myself NOT included. I too prefer the quest for knowledge over a lost love) the idea of an adventure motivated by intellectual curiousity is not exciting or not (ironically enough) believable. I've discovered this to be true after luring countless family and friends to my sci-fi and fantasy films over the years. People who don't like sci-fi hate it more when it's presented without the human interest. it comes across as too cold and clinical (as Wells' original novel felt to me when I first read it as a child).

------------------
"It's always fun to go into town, even if it's only for an hour!"

[VerbalKint]

Nice post Micah, but there's a few holes in it.

Since when should ANYONE who has a brain go by Ebert, who lambastes (spelling?) every good movie that comes out, and Harry who liked SUGAR & SPICE!!!

Probably the two worst critics you can go by when using the "So and so liked it" argument.

And I never used your post as a basis of whether or not I was still going to see this film. I was going to see it no matter what because:

A. I absolutely LOVED the original and accepted long ago the fact that this one would never measure up, and I love anything having to do with Time Travel.
B. I like the moon splitting apart in the trailer.
C. I like Guy Pearce

If this film is putrid beyond belief, I will let you all know that I thought so. But i'm not gonna nitpick.



[This message has been edited by VerbalKint (edited 03-08-2002).]

[Micah Robinson]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by VerbalKint:
Nice post Micah, but there's a few holes in it.

Since when should ANYONE who has a brain go by Ebert, who lambastes (spelling?) every good movie that comes out, and Harry who liked SUGAR & SPICE!!!

Probably the two worst critics you can go by when using the "So and so liked it" argument.



Verbal,

The only things with holes in them is your rationale.

You say that because I don't like LOTR, my opinion and rational regarding this movie isn't to be trusted.

So the reverse of that logic is for you to then implicitly trust those who did like LOTR. And they, almost uniformly, hated The Time Machine.

So then based on the that side of your questionable logic, you should stay away from it at all costs.

Of course, as has already been stated by Hester, there are additional holes in your rationale when you consider that Hester, who didn't like LOTR very much either, LIKED The Time Machine.

SO because you should distrust him as you do me, but that means you have one person who didn't like LOTR telling you yes, and one who didn't like LOTR telling you no....now what?

The answer is "See a movie because you do or don't want to see it. But don't try some weak justification using my name."

At this point, you DESERVE to have 90 minutes of your life wasted by this tripe.

So, please...I beg you. Go. Go tonight. And don't miss a second of it.



[This message has been edited by mikah912 (edited 03-08-2002).]

[Smilin' Jack Ruby]

Here's my review of Time Machine.

REVIEW OF "TIME MACHINE"

Goddamn, I fucking hated "Time Machine." I don't know if it's because I held out hope that it might turn out to be a big surprise and actually be a really great pic or what, but I really didn't get into it except when it came to a few special effects and then the Uber-Morlock make-up on Jeremy Irons at the end.

Why this hatred? Because I don't believe you should call a movie "The Time Machine" and purport it to be this great re-envisioning of the George Pal classic (or even have H.G. Wells' name on it) if it's going to be this vision-less, half-ass picture. Though you can kind of tell what they were going for originally, it feels like the movie has been chopped so much that there's nothing of the original plot in the fore, so it's completely focus-less.

At the beginning of the film, we're introduced to the genius professor Alexander Hartdegen (Guy Pearce, not particularly good in this movie until maybe about halfway through as it feels like he's trying hard not to "act") who is your typical Victorian New Yorker, absent-minded type. You know, the kind we were halfway introduced to in "Kate & Leopold." He's got a gorgeous and long-suffering girlfriend who he is finally going to propose to, but in the process, she's blown away by a robber sending Alexander into a spiral of self-destructive depression which leads him, in despair, to invent the time machine.

In the development meeting, you can almost hear the exec going, "well, the cause of science, human curiosity and discovery just isn't enough for today's demographic. He needs to have MORE of a reason to build a time machine." An intern makes a joke like, "hey, give him a girlfriend, kill her, and make her go back in time to save her. You know, like Superman at the end of Superman."

And a "re-imagining" is born.

Anyway, like "Groundhog Day," Alexander finds out that changing history isn't that easy (but unlike Bill Murray, he gives up after ONE try) and he's distraught. So, he goes into the future to find out Why He Can't Change History. I'm not kidding. That's the entire plot and motivation. So, he goes into the future and discovers the big disaster that pretty much ended civilization as we know it and then gets to the other side of it to discover the whole Eloi vs. Morlocks conundrum in the far future.

If I spent this column listing the plotholes in this movie, it would drive me and you both insane. Just take my word for it that they are continual and ridiculous. Just avoid this movie and it won't be a waste of your time trying to have the plothole debate later with your friends as, chances are, they won't be going either. And yeah, some of the plotholes are so egregious (perfect English exists after an Ice Age, so does a functioning computer that was only invented a few decades after our own time, psychics are only psychic part of the time, a never-explained time machine suddenly has the effect of a nuclear blast when its gears are clogged, supposedly anti-daylight Morlocks hunt in broad daylight, etc., etc., etc.), it almost makes some of the bad acting seem passable.

Let me say that I had no real problem with Orlando Jones in this. Yes, I wish his character simply didn't exist in the movie, but that doesn't make him a bad choice. Anybody would've done just fine as Vox. Samantha Mumba. Just fine. Who cares? If they're picking her solely because of looks, why not a fresh face? The script didn't support her at all, but why would it start with her after not supporting somebody like Mark Addy as Philby? Honestly, the addition of Philby seemed like one of my problems with "Mean Machine." Philby's there simply because he was there in the original film. He was completely unnecessary. Maybe in an earlier incarnation of the project, it worked, but not in this one.

And you know what else? The Stan Winston-designed Morlocks suck. They just look like men wearing masks most of the time, not evolutionary advances. I really wish somebody like Berni Wrightson had been called in to do concept art. I wish KNB had handled this entire film. I wish a lot of things with the practical effects (aside from the actual time machine which was a thing of absolute beauty).

On top of that, I wish a visionary sci-fi director had been called in for this. For some director, a truly talented director, a remake of George Pal's "Time Machine" would've been the realization of a life-long dream. Not to bag Simon Wells, but he's a first-timer when it comes to live-action and this was the GODDAMN "TIME MACHINE!" It's like what Frank Darabont says about what Kenneth Branagh did to his "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" script. In the hands of someone else, this could've been one of the biggest movies of the entire year.

Instead, it's a trifle. It's a slate-filler. It's going to be a quickly-forgotten exercise in noise.

That's too bad.

A post-script:

After all that, there was one sequence I have to admit was one of my favorite cameos I've seen in a movie in years. It was a moment of absolute pure joy for me that I didn't see coming, really. Alan Young, who I met last year at the Saturn Awards as he was the very first person to arrive, has one line in the movie, appearing as a flower seller in one scene.

Alan Young, the human star of "Mr. Ed" and the voice of Scrooge McDuck in the cartoon from the early 80's, through "Duck Tales" and up into the present, is one of the nicest, most gracious actors I've ever had the pleasure of meeting. He played Philby in the original "Time Machine" and that one touch, that one tip of the hat to that ground-breaking film, almost made me stand up and applaud.

But beyond that, the movie's barely taped together shite except for certain visual effects and a few bits of make-up work (and the amount of scenery Jeremy Irons chomps in his few moments of screen time).

3 out of 10



------------------
"Well, well, I thought. Oh my ears and whiskers!"

[TuxKamen]

Thank goodness. You just barely avoided having to deal with the actual argument. Nice driving.

[Neil Bung]

Tried to see this with a freebie advance ticket on Wednesday, but the theater was full (40 minutes before it started!). But a friend and I got free passes for tonight as consolation (penalty?).

Hell, it's free. Judging from the reviews, we might get a few laughs out of it, at least.

[VerbalKint]

Micah, your dislike of LOTR is something I went by because LOTR is a black and white film- you either like it or you don't like it.

You not liking it and me liking it would put us at the exact opposite ends of the spectrum.

Therefore, we don't share the same likes and dislikes, and that is why I will probably like this film. If you follow what I just said.

Of course, it could just suck and have nothing to do with opinion.

[Micah Robinson]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by VerbalKint:
Micah, your dislike of LOTR is something I went by because LOTR is a black and white film- you either like it or you don't like it.

You not liking it and me liking it would put us at the exact opposite ends of the spectrum.

Therefore, we don't share the same likes and dislikes, and that is why I will probably like this film. If you follow what I just said.

Of course, it could just suck and have nothing to do with opinion.

How many times do I have to call attention to Hester? He also didn't like LOTR, yet liked the Time Machine. In fact, he preferred The Time Machine (given a choice between the two, I prefer to be knocked unconscious with a 2X4).

So what that shows you is that what anyone thinks about LOTR has nothing to do with what they think about The Time Machine, nor does it mean that your tastes in movies run any one way necessarily.

In fact, the only thing it has to do with is LOTR.

Moral of the story: Don't bring up LOTR, unless we're talking about LOTR.

[Prankster]

Verbal, for gods' sake be reasonable. I don't get Micah's dislike of LOTR either, that doesn't mean I'm never going to listen to him again.

I mean, yes it's fair to say "Hey, obviously Micah and I have different taste in movies", but that doesn't mean your opinions can *never* intersect. Especially on something as apparently as godawful as this.

We're not (well, I'M not) going to ridicule and marginalize you if you are excited to see The Time Machine, or even if you enjoy it. Hell, who knows, I may enjoy it. I kinda liked the new POTA.

Two people can be identical twins and still disagree on one or two movies. If you ever find someone who agrees with you 100% on every movie ever made, I think the universe will explode. Whenever I hear the arguments about "Well you liked/disliked this movie, so your opinion is meaningless" or (even better) "you must be a sellout" I just have to laugh. Come on guys, we can argue about movies, but why get personal? Is anyone here going to claim they've never agreed with, for instance, Harry Knowles, just because "Harry liked Sugar and Spice!!"

Probably a wasted effort...

[Mad_Man_Mundt]

Hey, I liked Sugar and Spice. Are you all blind or was I the only one who saw the scene with the teenage cheeleaders in their panties throwing around money. Hell, the rest of the movie could have been footage of optic surgery and I still would have liked it.

[moovyphreak]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Steve Murphy:
Micah, Andrew and myself hashed this whole thing over dinner afterwards and, while Micah does make good points, I still believe the "logic" used in POTA was so rancid, that nothing can beat it (at least SO FAR).


This has nothing to do with the movie as I skipped the CHUD screening (despite having a second pass to see it elsewhere courtesy of EW.)

Is there another Andrew in the ATL CHUD contingent? http://www.chud.com/board/ubbhtml/biggrin.gif If so, cool beans!

I am GLAD I skipped this one!!

[This message has been edited by moovyphreak (edited 03-08-2002).]

[Steve Murphy]

Yeah, sorry, should have explained better. It was Andrew Wylie of Package fame, recently returned to civilization from his cultural adventures abroad.

Smilin' Jack, you're right on with your analysis, and I had no idea that was Alan Young in the flower shop. I love that guy!

[VerbalKint]

I don't care what you guys say. It is about likes and dislikes.

If someone tells you "LOTR sucked" and you obviously loved it, and then the next day he goes "Man, The Time Machine sucks, don't go see that piece of shit", are you really gonna listen to him?

That makes no sense at all.

You guys have the collective logic of a field mouse.

[Kevin Matchstick]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by VerbalKint:
Micah, your dislike of LOTR is something I went by because LOTR is a black and white film- you either like it or you don't like it.

You not liking it and me liking it would put us at the exact opposite ends of the spectrum.

Therefore, we don't share the same likes and dislikes, and that is why I will probably like this film. If you follow what I just said.

Ok - here we have Micah's top ten of 2001 (he posted it a while back, so it may have changed since then):

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by mikah912 (way back when):
1. With a Friend Like Harry
2. Moulin Rouge
3. The Royal Tenenbaums
4. Ocean's Eleven
5. Amelie
6. Training Day
7. A Beautiful Mind
8. A.I.
9. Brotherhood of the Wolf
10. Iron Monkey

So, I guess, by Verbal's equation that he provided for us, the above movies are Verbal's bottom ten of 2001. Let me put this lightly - Jesus, Verbal - you are one tough customer, those are some good movies on your bottom of 2001 list. "Moulin Rouge" is a movie that I really think you should watch again. I mean, come on - your second most hated movie in the year in which "Wishmaster 3" was released?

[Kevin Matchstick]

But wait, hold your horoscopes, here is Verbal's best of list from 2001:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by VerbalKint (from way back when):
1. Memento
2. LOTR
3. A.I.
4. Made
5. Moulin Rouge
6. The Man Who Wasn't There
7. Monsters Inc



"Moulin Rouge" and "A.I." are both on it. I don't understand..but you said...and then you said collective field mouse..and then carry the one, cross multiply...a little addition....

Ohhhhhhh - I get it. It makes absolutley no fucking sense at all.


[This message has been edited by Kevin Matchstick (edited 03-08-2002).]

[VerbalKint]

You guys have no idea what i'm talking about, i'm sure.

But don't worry.

You will someday. http://www.chud.com/board/ubbhtml/wink.gif

[VerbalKint]

I don't have the time to put into words what I'm trying to say, as i'll be leaving to see the film soon. But I will.

[Neil Bung]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by VerbalKint:
If someone tells you "LOTR sucked" and you obviously loved it, and then the next day he goes "Man, The Time Machine sucks, don't go see that piece of shit", are you really gonna listen to him?


Well, yeah. A single opinion on one thing doesn't negate every other opinion a person might have. I mean, if you're talking about someone who consistently hates all genre movies, it might be valid to disregard his opinion on the Time Machine.

But Micah just happens to not like that one particular film, as excellent as it may seem to the rest of us.

[VerbalKint]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Neil Bung:
Well, yeah. A single opinion on one thing doesn't negate every other opinion a person might have.



Ok guys, maybe I sounded like an idiot before. What Neil said is what I was trying to say- I always thought a person's opinion on one thing negates everything else. And yeah, it's a bad way to think.

Oh well.

[Martianman]

This from the same person who said anyone that didn't think Titanic was a good movie should "shampoo his nutsack".

Enjoy Time Machine. And keep your nutsack clean regardless.

[Clarence Beaks]

Actually, I think it's the other way around, Verbal.

One day, you'll understand that, although someone may have likes and dislikes that run contrary to your own preferences, the fact that they can elucidate their opinions by offering support and citing specifics, as Micah and SJR have ably accomplished in this thread, allow you to respect and value their insights, even though they don't always dovetail with yours.

Micah and I had a furious disagreement sometime back over THE OTHERS, and it's quite obvious we'll never see eye-to-eye on that particular film, but I was never less than clear as to why Micah disliked it because he was specific as to why he felt Amenabar's film didn't work.

Later, when Micah ended up loving MULHOLLAND DRIVE, and I did as well, I could see how Micah's preferences, stated so eloquently in our previous argument, made it possible for him to enjoy Lynch's mindfuck of a flick.

When Micah, SJR, Nick, Moriarty, etc. hold forth on a film I've yet to see, I read as much of their review as possible without spoiling the movie for myself, and usually have a pretty solid idea as to whether or not I'll like the film because I know how their tastes differ from mine. Then again, sometimes I'm wrong, but that's what makes this lil' game so much fun.

At the moment, Verbal, you're painting with too broad a brush. Hopefully, I'm made it clear as to how it's possible to *trust* an opinion without necessarily *agreeing* with it.

[Micah Robinson]

Many thanks to Kevin and Clarence.

I can't say it any better.

If you look at my top 10, with the exception of perhaps A Beautiful Mind, those are all pretty popular films here at CHUD and in general.

Likewise, I liked all, but one of Verbal's top 7, very much,

But as I said, some people only notice the dissention. It's like a finger pointing at the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger, or you will miss all the heavenly glory. ('Nuff respect to Bruce Lee)

Likewise, don't focus on our differences so much that you obscure the vast majority of films we both love, Verbal. I disliked LOTR and you loved it, great. I disliked The Time Machine, and you may love it, super. But there are SO many other films we both love that we can agree on. Our respective tastes are not mutually exclusive, lad. There's plenty of room for agreement there as well.

Even with the stuff I don't like, I give AMPLE reason for doing so, and it has nothing to do with prejudices or "bad" taste.

Either I like the story or I don't. Film is all about storytelling to me. If I am experiencing a story that's so full of holes that if I were telling it to a 4-year old, they'd stop me and go "But wait a minute....why didn't the bad man just use his mind powers on the good guy and make him go back in time?"...well, then I'm going to rip it as well.

There's nitpicking, and there's noting logical inconsistencies big enough to drive a truck through. I can't enjoy a film with the latter.

Hence why I didn't like POTA.

Hence why I didn't like The Others.

......The Time Machine

......LOTR

......and so on and so forth.

But I will always give you a detailed, non-BS reason why.

[Ludwig]

Fuck Micah! Fuck him right in his hairy ass! He wouldn't know a good film if it jumped up and down on his head screaming "I'M A GOOD FILM DAMNIT!"

------------------
"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam."

[Prankster]

I really hope that was a sarcastic post.

[VerbalKint]

This movie was fucking AWESOME, just like I expected. Granted, it wasn't as good as the original, but I think it kept with the spirit.

Having just seen the original 2 weeks ago was probably the reason I liked the movie so much, but how could ANYONE not like that score!!! Lion King-esque?? You mean that music that sounded like something out of Survivor? Oh come on, they had to have something that sounded tribal, it was supposed to be a somewhat primitive period. Other than that, the main theme RULED, and is truly one of the best i've heard in awhile.

I can forgive the minor shortcomings of the plot, too. It was all very confusing, and most of the characters weren't as well-developed as they should have been, but I don't care.

5 Stars

*SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
When the Time Machine blew up, it destroyed all the Uber-Morlocks in that whole area, and they were the only ones who existed. So it's not like other ones could have come and hunted down the rest of the people after Jeremy Irons was dead-- because they all died along WITH him. And while he was fighting with them, I guess we wouldn't have had a movie if they had come and intervened. I can forgive something like that, I don't care. Didn't ruin it for me.

I agree with you about how he could pull Alexander toward him with his telepathic abilities but couldn't beat him in a fistfight, but it's not like he had a lot of room to work with inside the sphere the machine created. In the heat of the moment I guess he didn't think to use his abilities, I don't know.

Again, though, minor stuff to me.

Not the best movie ever, but it's sure to be on my top ten of 2002. I don't know where it will be by year's end, but it will be there.

[This message has been edited by VerbalKint (edited 03-08-2002).]

[This message has been edited by VerbalKint (edited 03-08-2002).]

[Deadtony]

Just got back from this one, I should have listened to this thread and every other review.

Very very bad. It's one of the worst put together films I have seen in a long time. It's very disjointed. It felt very rushed.

The acting was okay, and I truthfully thought the score was okay. But the movie as a whole was a major dissapointment.

But damn you guys were right. ..

[This message has been edited by Deadtony (edited 03-08-2002).]

[Micah Robinson]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by VerbalKint:
This movie was fucking AWESOME, just like I expected....

I can forgive the minor shortcomings of the plot, too. It was all very confusing, and most of the characters weren't as well-developed as they should have been, but I don't care......

Ok, fine. Great. Let's see what he rates it...

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">***** out of *****

A perfect rating?

Wow. Good to know that this universally hated film that - in Verbal's words, is "confusing" and lacking "well-developed" characters - is up there with LOTR, Memento, The Godfather, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and so many other five-star classics. http://www.chud.com/board/ubbhtml/rolleyes.gif

The common ground we had just shrunk substantially, Verbal.

[VerbalKint]

This might sound stupid, but 5 isn't a perfect rating.

Zanarkand and I have a crazy rating system.

5 stars is pretty good, one of the best movies of the year. Anything below is only good, and doesn't deserve to be one of the best movies of the year.

19 stars deserves to be on my top 20 of all time.

20 stars deserves to be on my top 10 of all time.

Get it?

It sounds really ridiculous, but that's how we rate them.

[Deadtony]

So then shouldn't the rating be
***** out of********************

[VerbalKint]

Forget the (blank) out of (blank). I typed it wrong.

It's either,

5 Stars

19 Stars

20 Stars

[Micah Robinson]

Ok....time to catch some dinner. This is pointless.

[Poxy Von Sinister]

But if he always lies, he must be telling the truth, but he always lies ... error ... error ... error ....

------------------
All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. (http://www.sci-fighter.com)

[voltes5]

http://tborgax.homepage.dk/jpg/thumbs/mudd01.jpg

------------------
Speak English Or Die. --Sgt. D (http://www.creature-corner.com)

[Seahawk]

Funniest stuff I've read today.

Cheers me up, keep it going guys!

http://www.chud.com/board/ubbhtml/smile.gif

------------------
"Please Standby..."

Post Alley, A place to be (http://student.fortlewis.edu/~ardelay/) CHUD Babe Draft 2001, 2002, my girls! And the Depth Chart Secret! (http://student.fortlewis.edu/~ardelay/chud.htm)

[flyers130]

Who the hell turned Verbal into one crazy motherfucker?

------------------
*fist pump* (http://film.fanhosts.com/)

[Ludwig]

Prankster,

Check the winking happy-face prefacing my post. Of course I don't think badly of Micah. I think he knows that too, but chose to ignore my post because he is annoyed by all of this. That, and he secretly longs for me to be the one fucking his hairy ass. Heh.

------------------
"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam."

[Nick Hexum]

POSSIBLE SPOILERS!!

Did anyone else have a theater full of laughter after Emma died by the horse and buggy? I hope they were trying to make it funny, because at least they accomplished that. But if that was supposed to be a serious scene, they failed horribly..

[Jacktorrance1]

I went to see this because I was really bored after work tonight and what can I say.. I had a fun hour and 45 minutes.
You just have to suspend reality for a little bit and just accept things and not dwell on some of the plot holes (of which there are a few, but they're minor in the scheme of things).
It was fun, Pearce is great, Mumba is sufficient, the fx were up to par (wish i could have seen the shots of the moon pieces landing in NY, politcally correct my ass), and I liked Irons' character even though he was rather pointless in it. Heck even the morlocks were better than I thought they'd be. Not by much mind you.
I did however go in with very lowered expectations from reading this thread, that's no doubt a factor in me liking it.
Ah well. It was fun and took my mind off of life for a little bit, and at least there wasn't as much corny as hell dialogue as in We Were Soldiers *cringes at the thought of "at least I died for my country"*

[Patrick Sauriol]

Now that I'm not going to spend $10 to see this film, can someone who has seen TIME MACHINE answer me a question? In the junket interviews I've read, there's supposed to be a scene where Alexander goes billions of years into the future. Supposedly that's in Wells' original novel.

I haven't heard anyone mention this scene being in the film at all. In fact, it sounds like the farthest Alexander travels is 802,000 AD. Is that right, or is the other future scene still in the film? If so, what's it like? Did they pull it off?

[Micah Robinson]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Patrick Sauriol:
Now that I'm not going to spend $10 to see this film, can someone who has seen TIME MACHINE answer me a question? In the junket interviews I've read, there's supposed to be a scene where Alexander goes billions of years into the future. Supposedly that's in Wells' original novel.

I haven't heard anyone mention this scene being in the film at all. In fact, it sounds like the farthest Alexander travels is 802,000 AD. Is that right, or is the other future scene still in the film? If so, what's it like? Did they pull it off?




Nope. 802,000 is as far as he goes.

[VerbalKint]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by mikah912:

Nope. 802,000 is as far as he goes.

*SPOILERS*
-
-
-
-
No....remember? He goes way far into the future and sees that there are Morlock bases everywhere. He doesn't stay very long though.

Remember? The dial on his machine is completely filled up, to like 7 billion I think.

It was when he killed Jeremy Irons, right after it.

[Clarence Beaks]

I love a movie where you can pinpoint the exact moment of derailment -- where it goes from fine to wretched in the blink of an eye. In the case of THE TIME MACHINE, it's the the filmmakers', clearly feeling they'd painted themselves into a corner -- after having introduced, via Jeremy Irons, several ideas that won't stand up once the credits roll -- concede that the only way to settle all of this mularky is to stage a good, old-fashioned, time-warpin' slobberknocker, at which point I could've sworn I heard an offscreen twelve car pile-up.

Honestly, I quite enjoyed THE TIME MACHINE up until that point despite Pearce's too-studied performance in the early going, as well as a few irksome plot holes. It wasn't until I was walking to my car that the full force of the implausibilities, which pour down like golf ball-sized hail once Irons appears, wiped out any possibility of my retaining any enjoyment of this puzzling re-telling of Wells's classic.

A complete waste of time and energy from all involved, and yet another serious sci-fi misfire.

Bring on Soderbergh's SOLARIS!!!

[Yando]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Clarence Beaks:
Bring on Soderbergh's SOLARIS!!!

I second that.

[Deadcash]

**possible spoiler** The whole point of that scene i guess was to show that even though he traveled really far into the future, much of the things goin on in the year 800,000 still hasn't changed. So the implication was he goes back to save humanity etc, etc. The problem with this movie is the fact that they try to tie one storyline with another storyline and the whole transition was completely fucked up. Orginally he goes back to save his g/f from getting killed, he couldn't ok, so what's the next possible scenario? traveling waay in the future in hopes that somebody there might shed some light. A guy can build a machine to travel through time, but he can't come up with some logical reasons as to why he couldn't change his past,
What you have is two opposing plots here. one follows a guy with a determination to go to the past to save his love from dying and another about the advancement of science and humanity in the future. How can those two points meet? If i were to follow that "love" plot I would've had alexander after realizing he cannot save his woman (*after more than one try) go a little bit further in the past where he meets emma's great great great grandmother or whatever (who looks and acts exactly like emma) then have those two marry and have kids, so then at the "present" time alexander was in actuality dating his future great great great granddaughter thus forming a complete quantum paradox. THAT story would've worked for me and is more plausible than trying to mix a human interest and interest in science factor into the story.
Aside from that, I don't think following one storyarc would've helped. the whole piece was poorly put together and the whole transition to the climatic one on one battle scene came out awkward. When alexander finally came face to face with iron's character and he gave him the answer he was looking for, it seemed as though that was the end of the movie. So the guy returns him his time-machine walks him to his car says see yah later but then just as he's about to leave, alexander looks up and says "...but what if?" then fistfighting ensures. I was like WTF?!? Wasn't the guy helping alexander and now all of a sudden the two are squaring it off!? The whole thing just seemed like a lousy excuse to have a final battle scene and a big explosion to accompany it. And that still bothers me. is the fact that he barely even tried to save his gf from a mugger and a horse carriage, but he went back to do the impossible of saving samantha mamba, killing all the morlocks, and the eloi's.
This is not nitpicking here. This was what the film makers intended us to "get" and just did a sloppy job of getting that point across.
This probably would've worked better as a summer movie like planet of the apes. where shits like these are excused, but definately not coming out of oscar seasons where we just saw most of the best pictures of 2001.

"for a guy who possessed the ability to travel through time and could've done anything he wanted, he had to go and do the shittiest things possible."

[Neil Bung]

This. Movie. Sucked.

If I hadn't seen it for free, I think I'd be considerably more annoyed with it, but that's almost hard to comprehend.

Micah didn't bother going into the technicalities of time travel, as time travel plots are inherently filled with illogic (suffice to say I had the same problems he had with the other stuff, especially the contained time machine bomb method used at the end, which apparently only works within a certain radius and doesn't go through earth).

But this thing pushes things SOOO far, I think it's gotta be mentioned.

800,000 years.

Not only did ancient New York stone artifacts last through that time period (including an apparent ice age and plenty of erosion and all sorts of geological changes!!!), but so did a holographic computer system AND the fragile-looking glass plates on which Orlando Jones is projected.

In 800,000 years (800,000 years!!!!), English is still known by some in exactly the same un-altered form as we know it, complete with perfect 20th century American accents.

Also, the driving force behind this plot is that the past cannot be changed. But, in his jaunt into the past, Pearce's character changes TONS. Sure, his girlfriend dies on the same day. But she dies by different means at a different time. The entire lives of her original killer, the fellow driving the carriage, the witnesses, and their friends and families will be changed entirely.

The idea that it's only necessary that SHE die so that Pearce would be inspired to build his machine is just dumb. Basically, he should have free reign to pretty much do anything EXCEPT save the girl, then, right?

I have no problem suspending my disbelief, as long as the filmmakers don't shit on that suspension of disbelief. This movie takes the absurd logic of the last five minutes of Planet of the Apes and stretches it out for two hours.

(Whoops. After writing this up, I noticed that Smilin' Jack had some of the same points I did. Well, consider them all seconded.)

[Andre Dellamorte]

Quick question: Since they spend all their time doing arts and crafts and the only piece of food that looked available was the one lizard, maybe the Eloi's eat people too.

[Zanarkand102]

I saw the movie twice so far, and I absolutely love the movie. The score is awesome, and the main theme is one of the best I've heard in a long time. The morlocks looked awesome, the special effects where awesome, and the story although adapted gave a fresh spin on the book. Guy Pierce gave a great performance. Just in case anyone wants to know the soundtrack comes out March 26.

------------------
"Nothing is a cliche' when it's happening to you."

"Listen to my story. This...may be our last chance."

[VerbalKint]

The fact that many of you see plot holes in the logic of the time travel in this film is that you've all been brainwashed by time travel films of the past 20 years.

Not to say they have been bad by any means, but have not necessarily been right about time travel itself.

[Poxy Von Sinister]

And how is Einstein these days? Him being the only person I would deem qualified to say what's right and wrong about time travel, I assume you've been speaking to him.

------------------
All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. (http://www.sci-fighter.com)

[Jacktorrance1]

Funnily enough I've been reading a lot of Hawking and Sagan and their thoughts on time travel recently. Talk to Hawking, he expands on Einstein's theories and makes a few interesting ones of his own.
Time travel is a mouthful.

[Django]

I refuse to discuss any more movies with any one of you. As far as the actual films go at least. We can BS about the before's and the how's. But from here on out no more shall I read or take to heart anything anyone on CHUD thinks about anything.

Just like I refuse to watch Ebert ramble anymore.

Cause when I do, I go out of my mind. Or worse, people begin to debate whether or not I really feel the way I do or am just "going against the trend."

I love the original Time Machine. Always have and will.

I liked Burton's Planet of the Apes.

And I hated Lord of the Rings.

On this remake...well that's for you not to care about and always wonder.

Now if you excuse me, I must go rescue Samantha Mumba and her see-thru chain mail top from the guy from Dungeons and Dragons.

Away from the things of Man, my love. Away from the things of Man...

[Poxy Von Sinister]

Yet another multi-paragraph "No Comment" from the master himself....

------------------
All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. (http://www.sci-fighter.com)

[Django]

You give yourself far too much credit, Poxy.

[Poxy Von Sinister]

Credit for what? Being able to voice an opinion?

------------------
All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. (http://www.sci-fighter.com)

[D_B_Cooper]

The only scenes I liked in this "remake" were the second Vox scene and the scene with Jeremy Irons as the Uber-Morlock.
In the second scene where Alexander encounters Vox, there are hints there of what this film might have been. In a more realized movie, this scene could have been something great.
Hell, the whole movie could have been great. I refuse to rehash the film's plot, because other posters (Micah) have already done a good job of it.
I don't even know if I could give this movie a 3/10. It was just not good. It was the first time a while that I actually left the theatre feeling bad.

[RyanC]

Ok, I am going to lay my balls out on the chopping board here. I had fun at the screening of "The Time Machine". The film was dumbed downk, sloppy, over-the-top, silly, and it is true that score among other things sucked. But for some reason I enjoyed it. I guess it isn't a huge shock considering some of the other movies that I hold in high regard: "Nightbreed", "Event Horizon", "Total Recall" - I love all of these and they are all a total mess.

[Yando]

I finally got to see this last night. I actually walked in about 5 minutes late, but that didn't matter at all.

Now, for throwing my .02 into this arena, yes, Smilin' Jack Ruby pretty much nailed everything right on the head. This is downright awful. It easily goes on my worst of 2002 list.

That's it for me.

[Kevin A. Ranson]

Better late than never right?

Time travel stories fall into two lines of thought: linear and mutliversal. Linear is simple, because time flows only backward and forward, but for time travel to be possible, it must be preordained that it WILL happen. Films like "The Final Countdown," where the the USS Nimitz travels back to 1941 Pearl Harbor, uses linear thought to have a man from the future stuck in the past, and that future man ensures that everything happens to ensure his own existence (of course, it works, or else he wouldn't be there.)

Multiversal is more complicated, because it deals with possibilities and probabilities: if you change something in the past, YOU observe the change and YOUR future is different; a parallel timeline has been created and the past can have severe consequences on the time traveler once he returns to the present. "Back to the Future" relied on this thought, meaning you can change the past as long as you are willing to live with the consequences.

Apply this to the 2002 version of "The Time Machine." He saves his one true love, then, on a whim, journeys to the future to learn that her rescue will affect the lives of millions or even the world. Then he must decide on his own selfish needs or that of all mankind. Instead, when Jeremy Irons (portraying the high evolution of man) answers Hartdegen's question at the end of the film, it's merely the simplist and poorest answer he could give. Our time traveling hero accepts it, then acts accordingly heroic with a suddenness that feels more like the production ran out of money than concluded satisfactorily; another $80 million production with a "Tomb Raider"-quality script. Was it really necessary to add this previously non-existant and poorly-envisioned sub-plot just to motivate anyone to build a time machine?

Ugh. Special effects 1, script 0.

------------------
The Undead are Watching. (http://www.moviecrypt.com)

[Nick Nunziata]

Alright, now I have to see this film. Anyone up to going?

[Micah Robinson]

Steve's your best hope. I REFUSE to scorch my eyes twice.

[VerbalKint]

Edited to remove bad joke.

[This message has been edited by VerbalKint (edited 03-12-2002).]

[The13th]

I'd go with you but I am pretty locked in at work for the next couple of days with the potential to go into the nights and I couldn't offer a concrete time when I'd be available.

Let me know when you do plan on going and I may be able to fit it in.

[Brian Koukol]

I finally saw the film and actually enjoyed it. 95% of you must be on crack. Except for micah, who is allowed to hate anything. And django.

[VerbalKint]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Brian Koukol:
I finally saw the film and actually enjoyed it. 95% of you must be on crack.

One more for the good guys!

------------------
"I'm saying I'm an insect who dreamt he was a man and loved it. But now the dream is over and the insect is awake."

[Linnifer]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nick Hexum:
POSSIBLE SPOILERS!!

Did anyone else have a theater full of laughter after Emma died by the horse and buggy? I hope they were trying to make it funny, because at least they accomplished that. But if that was supposed to be a serious scene, they failed horribly..
We all laughed. Except for Micah who made some comment about how unromantic the rest of us are. http://www.chud.com/board/ubbhtml/rolleyes.gif Oh well. I still think that was the best part of the movie. We discussed it briefly at the coffee meeting yesterday and agreed the movie would have been much better if that had been the entire plot. Emma dies- Alexander goes back to save her- Emma dies- Alex goes back- Emma dies again in an even more creative way... you get the idea. http://www.chud.com/board/ubbhtml/biggrin.gif

[renfield]

Two hours of my life....gone forever. Gone, I say!!!

[Deadcash]

no, only an hour and a half that seemed like two hours my friend.

[Blunt]

Saw this tonight (late again I know). You guys said it all: the movie's lenght made it feel too rushed, as if we were constantly missing out on something, weak performances, horrible script ridden with plot holes large enough to drive a Mack truck through it,absolutely disgusting score (Klaus Badelt please die), Morlocks looking like Iggy Pop on a bad drug day and so on. That said there were a few cool bits such as the moon falling, the scene where the scenery changes and evolves as Alexander travels through time, the matte painting of NY in the future and Jeremy Irons. Not enough to save it from being a bore, barely more watchable than Tomb Raider.

[Michael Rabattino]

Did you all have popcorn butter in your ears when the score was being played?

It was excellent. Why are Zan and I the only ones who seem to think so?

I mean, OK, he's no John Williams, but there is no reason to HATE this score.

[Blunt]

Yeah right Verbal. You want a good fantasy or sci fi score? Try Conan the Barbarian by Poledouris, LOTR by Howard Shore, Back to the future by Silvestri anythin but that. I didn't have butter in my ears (I almost never eat popcorn at the movies) but this felt like a bad Gladiator/The Lion King rip-off, which shouldn't seem that strange since Klaus Badelt is one of the many disciples of Hans Zimmer, and he's far from being the most talented one I can say that.

[Michael Rabattino]

I loved the Gladiator and LOTR scores and listen to them religiously.

They are definitely better than this score, I agree.

But that said, I still find this score to be enjoyable and the main theme is great.

Why some of you want to stomp on Klaus Badelt's fingers is beyond me. It's not his fault that people have picked up instruments before.

[Blunt]

Yeah but it's his fault if he never tries to come up with someting fresh and relies on stealing and assembling bits of previous (and mostly better) scores.

[CTDeLude]

Along with this post causing this to be moved to Film In Release or whatever I must admit that I enjoyed the movie on perhaps a more hands off level but at the same time am extremely disappointed by several things.

Just caught it recently and knew it got ripped to all shreds here on this lovely film board and was able to look at it a bit differently. Not only that but I saw it in a weird way... I saw the ending first and the rest of the movie later. And the last part (Irons speech forward) is actually quite moving in many ways. It is when the movie is coddled together with the rest of the film that things begin to go awry (funny that). Once I found out that this movie's length was only some hour and 40 minutes and that a full hour is spent on the year 802,000 I could immediately see why this was a disappointment. in fact I have to wonder where this $80 million budget is. This movie should have easily been some 2:30 in length or more because there were some great things that should have been explored at greater length(i.e. 2030, the multiple deaths of the g/f, and the destruction during the moon.)

I don't really fault the direction in the film as it seemed adequate enough and the score itself did not annoy me in the slightest.

If anything though this movie has made me want to read the source material and view the original to see exactly how this whole fiasco came about.

Definitely coulda been more and I do indeed see the many, many plots holes but on an emotional level this movie did have a decent enough punch for a late night viewing. That and I am a sucker for any kind of "What if" scenarios (another thing this should have explored far more).

[STAR CHAMBER]

Moving to Films in Release.

[Countess Anna loves Aussie Dracula]

I personally thought it was an insult to H.G. Wells' work. But, LXG made up for that.

Now, the only good thing about "Time Machine" was the lovely Guy Pearce. Oh yeah.... However, I'm fancying those LXG guys(Flemyng, Townsend, Roxburgh) more.

[Johnny Daywalker]

Alot of people thought this was pure garbage and if you paid 8$ to see it I can understand why. However I rented it for 1.25$ and enjoyed it quite a bit. I could tell it was flawed but enjoyed it in spite of that. Mumba surprised me and Pearce and Irons were terrific. Still have no idea why they ended it with Mark Addy's character that seemed pointless.

[Countess Anna loves Aussie Dracula]

I know, it's just that in the book, he is telling it in retrospect. Changing that was an insult to the author, coming from his descendant Simon Wells!

[Ryo Hazuki]

The movie is has an excellent musical score by Klaus Badelt, one of the better scores in the past few years.