Timeline Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
They had to travel into the past to save the future
This fall you're history
One man's future lies in the past.
In 6 hours they'll be history!
In the heart of the beautiful and historically rich Dordogne Valley of France, a team of archeology students and their professor diligently work to uncover the ruins of a 14th-century castle. For Professor Edward Johnston, the project is the culmination of a lifelong dream. Aided by assistant professor Andre Marek, his son Chris and students Kate, Stern and François, Johnston has made major strides in unearthing not only La Roque Castle but also a monastery and structures from the surrounding village of Castlegard. But things are about to go haywire... Suspicious of the dig's benefactor, International Technology Corporation (ITC) and the man who runs it, Robert Doniger, Professor Johnston heads to ITC headquarters in New Mexico to get some answers, and while he's away, his students discover a chamber that has been sealed for more than 600 years. Marek and Kate descend into the unstable room, and just before a near disastrous cave-in, they make two startling discoveries — a bifocal lens, which couldn't have been invented before the chamber was sealed, and even more intriguing, a handwritten plea for help dated April 2, 1357...from Professor Johnston! Determined to solve the mystery, the students head for ITC headquarters, where they are stunned to learn of Doniger's new invention — a machine that can actually transmit three-dimensional objects through space. Although he meant for the device to revolutionize shipping, Doniger inadvertently opened a wormhole that leads directly to the 14th century, and Professor Johnston, who had insisted on experiencing the discovery himself, is now trapped in a vicious French vs. English feudal war! Can Johnston's loyal students survive one of the most violent battles in world history... and make it back to the 21st century alive?
| Gerard Butler | André Marek |
| Billy Connolly | Prof. E.A. Johnston |
| Paul Walker | Chris Johnston |
| Frances O'Connor | Kate Ericson |
| Ethan Embry | Josh Stern |
| Anna Friel | Lady Claire |
| David Thewlis | Robert Doniger |
| Neal McDonough | Frank Gordon |
| Matt Craven | Steven Kramer |
| Michael Sheen | Lord Oliver |
| Lambert Wilson | Lord Arnaut |
| Marton Csokas | De Kere/Decker |
| Rossif Sutherland | François Dontelle |
| Steve Kahan | Baker |
| David La Haye | Arnaut's Deputy |
| Richard Donner |
5.30 out of 10 (10466 votes)
Visitor Reviews
They should have asked me, I would have told them how to improve this movie.
posted on 31 Aug 2009When I worked for Nielson Ratings, I had to sit through this movie several times. I stood by and watched studio executives and Dick Donner file past me and if even one of them had asked me my opinion, I would have told them that Paul Walker and Frances O'Connor weren't great together as a couple, because they didn't seem to fit together. She's running around this entire movie sporting a god-awful 80s girl-mullet and he's too permed,tan and gay-looking to be interested in someone like her, romantically. Ugh, then when they go back in time, and the "bad guy" asks Russif Sutherland to translate something to the other "bad English guys" sealing Russif Sutherland's doom... I just slapped myself in the forehead. Totally retarded. I also hated the parts where the Americans who travel back in time, earnestly try to explain to the French that they aren't English, in order to save themselves from being killed. Duh. Today, as an American, I go to England NOW, and it's very obvious, I'm not bloody English. Now insert a gap of several hundred years, it's also going to be obvious, I'm not bloody English. Now BOTH the French and the English would probably think these Americans came from somewhere surrounding the British Isle, because they are speaking a version of English, but come on... They might be mistaken for Irish before anyone would accuse the Americans of being English. Also, I think I've seen better sets at the Rennisance Festival in Annapolis. Every time an actor throws a sword I expect to see tourists cheering in the background wearing shorts and Shakespeare feathers, holding a turkey leg in one hand and over-priced beer in the other. To this day, I wonder if this film was made in order to launder someone's money. I can't see the budget in the final product... to be honest... unless they spent it in Market Research screenings, which is possible.
A good movie
posted on 31 Aug 2009When you read an interesting book and then you find out that it is going to become a movie you always expect this movie to be as good as the book . But no matter how much you like the movie it will never be as enjoyable as the book because it is impossible to put on the screen as many details as a book generally does. For me it is a good movie, maybe lacking many details, but overall it is possible to have a good time watching an exotic film like this. To those who are afraid of renting it I suggest you do not read the book first. Watch this film and only then read the book. You will surely like it. To those who criticize the movie I think that it is always good to watch and not pay so much attention to details. Sometimes looking too much for details might spoil a good film.
Enjoyed the visuals and the possibilities exemplified in it.
posted on 31 Aug 2009Going to show this movie in my high school world history class to exemplify the animosity between the Brits and the French, or should I say the Normans(Vikings) and the Franks? Michael Crichton's name sells. It is that simple. Since my earliest recollection as a pre-teen boy watching "Andromeda Strain" on a black and white TV on network television on a Saturday night, to seeing "Westworld" and then reading "Jurasic Park" wondering if it would ever become a movie, he has authored interesting stories. If you don't like the movie, you won't like the book. It is a reasonably faithful adaptation. Again, I find it worthwhile enough to spend two and a half class periods on it to demonstrate in an entertaining manner the rational expectation of what it may have been like back then in midieval France...
Not bad... but only for those who don't know the book
posted on 25 Aug 2009As 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
What book?
posted on 19 Aug 2009I was completely disappointed with this movie, all that anticipation for nothing. I didnt see the book in it at all, yea sure there are similarities and the characters for the most part carried the same names, but other then that, the only thing that comes to mind is what book, it isnt based on any book. Its not bad when compared to a disney channel movie, but its atrocious when compared to the book its supposed to be based upon.
Most Boring Movie Of All Time!!!
posted on 17 Aug 2009Absolute rubbish! Let's start with the positives though. Good casting with Paul Walker even though he failed to deliver an exciting role. Done. Now onto the negatives which would never end if I had the time. First of all the acting from everyone including Paul Walker was the worst, most boring, tired, ever from these actors. It was like none of them had wanted their roles, but Richard Donner (director) had held a gun to them and forced them to take the role. Either that or they accepted before reading the script. Second their was way to much talk and when some action came along, well let's just say if you didn't know what was going to happen then you don't watch a lot of movies. The movie never should have even been considered to be made, with such a week storyline and all the soppyness the book had in it. Bottom line is if anyone reads the sypnosis on the back cover of the DVD/video and is excited about the movie well their are a lot of freshly painted houses out there just waiting for you to go and watch the paint dry on.
This movie is an abomination.
posted on 17 Aug 2009So I just read Timeline after I found it in a box in my garage. I thought since I liked history, I would enjoy it. I did.Remembering that a movie based on the book was made a few years ago, I decided to take a look. Bad idea.The writing is bad, some of the actors do not fit their roles well, and the editing is awful (granted it must be hard to edit a movie that jumps back andforth from the past to present).I really wish that they had not invented a character (Francois) or sent Gordon back. That really didn't make sense. Also, Decker was introduced far too early. I understand that they couldn't possibly do a complete adaptation without a long movie, but this is a joke. No movie would be better than this one. The least they could have done was not drastically change the plot and lengthen the movie by another 20-30 minutes. Instead, the beginning of the movie is way too fast. It hardly introduces the viewer to the characters and rushes through the plot.Do yourself a favor and don't watch this movie unless you like B-rate Sci-Fi movies adapted from books.
Thought it scrumptious...
posted on 01 Aug 2009Nothing cheesy here... a big, happy surprise. Medieval joy, amidst a lot of violence but all was very germane to the story and very appropriate for the time. (Excuse the pun.) A bit difficult to follow in places, but I got the gist of it. I suggest that if you aren't really quick at following fast paced movies, you watch it twice to catch things you may've missed. It kept my 10 and 12 year old glued to the TV. Only one offensive word in the whole movie. As with other time-travel plots, it's a wee bit challenging to follow, and made my head hurt to try and figure it all out, but in the long run it was delightful and I loved it. My personal pick for the year's favorite sleeper!
a ghastly melding of history and sci-fi
posted on 16 Jul 2009Ever had one of those crazy dreams (probably after you've made one too many trips to the salad bar at Medieval Times) where you suddenly find yourself back in the year 1357, holing up in a French castle while all around you French and British forces are enacting the Hundred Years' War? If you have, it was probably more interesting than what we see in `Timeline' - and if you haven't, I am sure you could come up with a more convincing and intriguing scenario than the makers of this film have devised with the same material.
Though based on a Michael Crichton novel, `Timeline' is about as bad a sci-fi fantasy as anyone could ever possibly imagine. In this time-tripping tale told by an idiot, a group of modern-day archaeologists in France are transported through a `wormhole' to 14th Century Europe to help retrieve the leader of their dig who has (don't ask how) become stuck in the past.Time-travel yarns require a certain intelligence and finesse to make them both intriguing and convincing. `Timeline' is ludicrous from the very outset, for less than five minutes after our intrepid little heroes first learn of the existence of the way-back machine, they are all suited up in their Medieval garb and heading back in time, utterly unprepared for what they might find there. Once they get to their destination, the plot bogs down in endless scenes of armored men on horseback a-hacking and a-hewing away at the anachronistic visitors. I mean, whose bright idea was it to set up this time machine premise and then send the characters not forward into a potentially interesting future but BACKWARDS to take part in a creaky, hackneyed Medieval romance? It's one thing to set up this time-bending scenario; it's quite another to do absolutely nothing with it.
Oh sure, there's the usual deep-think palaver about whether or not these folks from the future should risk tampering with history etc., but the filmmakers' sights seem to be set on more mundane matters like elaborate action and fight sequences and puppy-love romance. And, of course, all these archaeologists turn out to be expert swords- and bowmen, fully the equal in skill and talent to their 14th Century brethren. On the whole, the acting is amateurish, the dialogue inane and the special effects virtually nonexistent for a film of this type. The film, in fact, both looks and feels like a third-rate, throwaway project designed for no purpose other than to give Paramount Studios a corporate-loss write-off come tax time.`Timeline' is like H.G. Wells for the high school dropout.
A hilarious comedy of liberal morons lost in time!
posted on 14 Jul 2009Greetings...TimeLine is a liberal romp of the worst kind, celebrating the modern stupidity of the educated morons that travel back in time to 1357 France. Their first incredibly Liberaly Educated decision is to take back a group of characters consisting of Scottsmen and Frenchmen to an English 100 years war encampment in 14th century France. We are supposed to believe that these supposedly educated idiots simply forgot in the heat of their foaming at the mouth emotionalism that in 1357, England was at war with both Scotland and France...Naturally 3 of their party are killed within minutes of their arrival! The English in 1357 apparently DIDN'T forget! They are then predictably taken captive and the emotionalism and modern stupidity takes over from there. As the movie progresses these modern day murderers start their romping and stomping mass murder spree, delighting in their supposed superiority as they all get a taste of 14th century blood. Indescrimantly murdering anyone in the past who happens to get in their way. This of course has NO apparent effect on the timeline, and naturaly these self rightious young politically correct tree huggers are drooling and foaming with rampant emotionalism at ever turn. Not once during the whole movie does anyone ever simply calm down and carefully think intelligently.The acting is 3rd rate - the costumes are all bright and clean, as if everything has just come out of the laundry, and the entire movie is carefully crafted to be completely predictable at every turn, so as not to surprise any young communists who might get upset at the non-stop violence and gore.It is absolute liberal propaganda pablum for the Hep-C Generation. You'll love it so long as you didn't actually pay for it! This movie has Buyers Remorse written all over it!
There's a lesson here...
posted on 14 Jul 2009...and it is this: IGNORE WHAT PEOPLE SAY.I avoided this flick at the cinema because everybody said and wrote that it was crap and I didn't want to waste my money. In Dunedin it lasted maybe for acouple of weeks (like, years ago, THE POSTMAN, which disappeared from theschedule after one week!), and that was that. Dead and buried and forgotten.A couple of days ago someone in my family got it out on DVD and left it lying around the house. So I watched it. And I felt like kicking myself for the idiot I am.As I said, NEVER pay attention to what people say.I mean, it wasn't the most exciting movie I've ever seen. Nor was it the best acted one. Nor was the story very original. Nor surprising. Nor... whatever.But I found it SATISFYING. That's a strange quality in a film (or a story,whichever way told). 'Timeline' was one of those movies where you see all the flaws, but you don't really care. Speaking just for myself, I just LIKED it.It definitely qualifies for a placing on my 'movies worth watching' list(http://www.owlglass.com/assets/html/moviespg1-rev1.html).4/5Till Noever Author: KEAEN. Edge Science Fiction and Fantasy Publishing
Good Vs. medieval
posted on 10 Jul 2009While you are enjoying Gerard Butler in 300, you could go back in time to this film and see his earlier work. You could, but you really wouldn't want to.The Michael Crichton's novel ''Timeline'' was not well served by this screenplay that tells of scientists that travel back to 1357.The movies was painfully long and there was no chemistry between the love interests.Andre (Gerard Butler) and Lady Clare (Anna Friel) went from how do you do to commitment in record time. Then he has to decide whether to travel back or stay. Duh! Then there is Chris (Paul Walker),and Kate (Frances O'Connor). Walker, who became a star with ''The Fast and the Furious,'' just has to smile to get the girl. So 1950s.The fact that we really can't relate to these characters means that we really don't care that the time machine may not work. Let them get stuck in 1357. They deserve it.
What was that about?!
posted on 20 Jun 2009At least in Jurassic Park, Speilberg took the time to discuss how they cloned dinosaurs. How did they travel back in time? I am really getting disappointed how Micheal Crichton is letting Hollywood destroy his books. I love to read them, but I would never own the movies. My advice to anyone who has seen the movie, or is going to....read the book first.
mmmmm Marek!
posted on 14 Jun 2009OK as a confirmed fan of Gerard Butler I was destined to love this movie, but having said that I did genuinely enjoy this movie, although its COMPLETELY different from the book.The movie is Timeline the book 'light' so to speak it doesn't go into any great detail, Paul Walker is 'stiff' and Anna Friels accent is 'eh?' but I can't help it! I loved this movie! The good things in this flick don't creep up on you till you admit that you like it! Gerard Butler is yummy to look at (!), Billy Connelly is cracking, Neal McDonough is the ever dutiful ex-marine and Ethan Embry is great as a slightly neurotic scientist! And the plot I hear you cry? Bit thin in places and nowhere as technical as the book (which admittedly i thought was kinda good on my poor abused brain!) its just a nice pretty love story with everyone being happy (sort of - when they're not dead!) If you want something heavy - READ THE BOOK - if not watch the movie, its a delightful romp in 1357! What more could you want on a Saturday night when your bored?
Go Read the Book!
posted on 02 Jun 2009I had the pleasure of reading Michael Crichton's book recently. Now, I just saw the movie. If you've already read the book, then don't see the movie. If you haven't read it, then read it.So many things that are covered in the book, are totally ignored here. I can't mention them as I would spoil the movie.
Crichton Lucks Out This Time.
posted on 02 Jun 2009Richard Donner's "Timeline", based on the novel by popular author Michael Crichton, is terribly old fashioned and seems out of place in these current times. This action/adventure movie is mildly entertaining, eventhough it deals with the notion of time travel which has always been an interesting subject for cinema.A powerful technological corporation creates a machine that can transport physical objects through space from one location to another. Problem is that it doesn't work correctly. They discover that instead of transporting things through space, it's sending it through time. When a Scottish archaeologist (Billy Connolly) is sent back in time to 14th century France, he leaves messages of help for his students in the present to find. So the students and his son (Paul Walker) travel to the Middle Ages to locate him and bring him home. Two major obstacles stand in their way. The archaeologist is captured by the British and the transportation device is blown to pieces, due to a grenade sent forward through time, by accident.The beginning grabs you almost immediately. A man appears out of thin air, dressed in rags, and collapses on a deserted road where a passer-by (played by Donner regular Steve Kahan) picks him up. During the opening, intercut with the aforementioned scenes on the road, there are beautifully lit shots in a forrest of the same man being chased by a knight on horseback. As the movie progresses you begin to analyze that beginning, realizeing that it doesn't make much sense. Nor does the moviemakers bother to explain the occurance when a character brings it up. Why the man appeared on the road, and not in the transportation machine, is never adequately addressed?Michael Crichton has successfully made a name for himself in the realm of science fiction. His Jurassic Park novels were adapted for the screen during the 1990s to blockbuster success, thanks in large part to it's director Steven Spielberg. Crichton has been associated with such winners as "Westworld", "Coma" and Robert Wise's "The Andromeda Strain", whether it's in the capacity of director/screenwriter or based on his source material. There has also been disappointments. "Congo" and Barry Levinson's "Sphere" failed to attract audiences. This movie comfortably fits inbetween the hits and the misses.What stands out about this movie is that Donner has cast actors rather than stars. Walker is probably the most well known of the cast due to his starring roles in The Fast And The Furious movies. David Thewlis and Frances O'Connor have received critical acclaim on previous films. The other cast includes Connolly, Matt Craven and Anna Friel. To some, the real star is Crichton and his novel. The old adage is that the story is the star, the one thing that truely matters. Without a great script, the talent won't be interested.Problem is, that the story isn't partically that good. While it has an interesting idea, the screenwriters don't explore all the possibilities that the notion of time travel possesses. For an action/adventure, the midsection is slow. Both of the love stories woven into the narrative are so unbelievable that it grinds the movie down to a halt. Only two things could've saved this movie. If a big name star headlined this tale then their appeal would've blinded audiences to the problems in the writing. And why Crichton wasn't hired to adapt his own novel is a mystery?Suspension of disbelief plays an important part in the majority of movie genres. Science fiction, fantasy, action, comedy. Any type of movie that doesn't necessitate realism falls into this category. But Yank Walker as the son of Scot Connolly, that's truely unbelieveable. I haven't seen a more ludicrous choice of casting since Dustin Hoffman played the son of Sean Connery in Sidney Lumet's "Family Business".On the plus side, you're never too sure which characters are going to live or die by the conclusion. With some movies, you know instinctively which person's going to be dispensed with. It's like watching the original series of "Star Trek". The crew beams down to an unexplored planet and there's always an extra that beams down with them, someone you've never seen before. Their costume is different, they never speak and in numerous cases they don't even have a name. (The comedy spoof "Galaxy Quest" reinforces this theory.) With this movie, it comes as a surprise when certain players are killed off.Movies that deal with the notion of time travel have always held the public's interest no matter how sophisticated or Z grade the production is. Majority of the intellectual time travel films bring something new to the table. But "Timeline" plays it safe, useing pre-existing theories and conventional ideas.The standout is the climatic medieval battle scenes. Donner is well versed in the action department due to his work on the Lethal Weapon series. These scenes, filmed at night, are exciting, breathtaking and well executed. It's a shame that the rest of the movie isn't as good.It's ironic in post Gulf War II that the villains of the piece are the British and the heroes are the French. I'm sure that this aspect of the movie will make it unpopular in certain world markets. Yet another movie that'll suffer due to being released at the wrong time.Overall, "Timeline" takes itself way too seriously. What's needed is a self depreciateing sense of humour, characters making fun of the situations that they're in. No one ever questions whether time travel is possible and they take to it as if it's like riding a bike or some other mundane activity. Since the early movies of Terry Gilliam, every movie set in the middle ages seems too hygienic as if all their costumes have just come back from the cleaners. Filth and squalor seems more appropriate. This is an OK movie, best suited for video though the battle scenes will lose its impact on the small screen.
I've rarely seen worse.
posted on 31 May 2009Timeline isn't the WORST movie I've seen this year. But only because it was a year that had House of the Dead in it. Actually, upon thinking about it, I liked House of the Dead better than Timeline. At least the combat scenes in House were realistic.Timeline is a movie in desperate search for a plot, and a point. One of the film's major problems is that Donner never quite focuses on what he's doing. There's a lot of "hey, Mom, check out this special effect!" but the movie never decides if it wants to be action, adventure, a period piece, a romance, or a man vs society conflict.Part of what's dragging it down isn't the acting, nor the actors, but the godawful cheesy dialogue and poor plotting. For a fairly talented bunch, there are very few moments where any of them can find any connection to their characters and do more than mouth lines. One of the best moments, acting-wise, in the film is when Gerard Butler, as the professor Andre Marek, is kneeling over the body of a man he's just murdered in cold blood- and the actor's face shows every awful moment of what he's just done. With NO lines to mess up the moment. Unfortunately every time Donner gets the chance, he goes for babble over substance.Ethan Embry is surprisingly good, managing to throw one of the movie's best hissy fits while maintaining what credibility left him by someone's decision to give him Robin Hood's beard. Watch out; when his character gets upset, his voice goes into the ultrasonic ranges, and suddenly his relationship to Tony Randall really shows.Paul Walker isn't bad. He also isn't good, but neither is the movie. He's been lambasted pretty heavily by critics, but since the first thing I saw him in, Varsity Blues, was a nuanced, measured performance, I know he's got it in there somewhere. Walker suffers from what I call "Reeves Disease" where no one bothers to make him act, since the pretty face is all they've hired.Frances O'Connor is the token female, in a movie with only one other female character. Every other female featured in the book's narrative has either been removed or changed to a man. Hello, Hollywood? Women can be Marines, and corporate attorneys? O'Connor does her best with a script that requires her to cling to Paul Walker at any moment that she might show some real acting, or her character any sign of being a strong female. Donner doesn't like women much, does he?The production values are impeccable, and my favorite cut in the movie was a long pan of a medaeval wagon train; Donner does the long pan, and apparently couldn't cut out the close shot of a draft horse lifting it's tail- which was unintentionally hilarious for me. Costumes are excellent and well researched, and all the villains are appropriately grimy, with greasy hair and bad teeth. I do think it was amusing that Timeline was obviously filmed before "Freedom Fries", since the French are the heroes.The love stories are clunky, and weigh down the action, once again upholding the Hollywood idea that you can fall in love with someone you've seen for a sum total of 47 minutes in your life, throwing your whole existence away to be with that person.I was sorry it wasn't a better movie, or even still, a worse one. Unfortunately, it wasn't even bad enough to register as a camp classic.However, Gerry Butler spends a good three minutes without his shirt, and that was a good three minutes as far I was concerned. As a sidebar, that man can RIDE; he must have learned from Attila, but he rides like he was born in the saddle. Look for when he tries to drown his horse.Another favorite moment is after listening to everyone including the French speak perfect, idiomatic modern English, one of the extras gamely tries for a bit of linguistic reality- "Milord! Trebuchet!" and everyone onscreen stops for a minute to stare like "who is this twit?"It FELT like the "six hours" tagline.
Why you should read the book AFTER you've seen the movie
posted on 27 May 2009This 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...)
Outstanding non-stop action true to the book.
posted on 25 May 2009This movie is true to the book. Great special effects. It was a little bloody at times, but that is true to the period of time described.Good mix of character development and story line. At first it could be a little fast for people who have not read the book. The ironic touches at the end make a nice touch and are well done. I cannot understand why more people are not going to see this entertaining action movie.
Nothing like a little medieval RECreation
posted on 31 Aug 2009I think I had a rather unique perspective on this particular movie. I'm an aspiring film maker who just happens to make a living as an Archaeologist AND hobbies in medieval recreation. I read the book first. For those who get bent out of shape over movies not matching the books, don't read the book first. TIMELINE (the movie) definitely stands by itself just fine without any background knowledge. Gerard Butler and Frances O'Connor make the movie. David Thewlis (one of my favourites) was perfect as Doniger. Don't think, however, that the elimination of the other strong female roles from the book wasn't noticed. The character of Kramer could have easily remained a woman, even with the change in roles. There was no reason to cast Gomez as a man. It's a shame these changes were made... there are so few strong female characters (even the short-lived parts) in fantasy and adventure movies. The costumes were great (and as far as I could tell in one Movie Theater sitting.. accurate), and the archaeology was pretty close to home. It's nice to finally see real archaeologists portrayed properly in popular culture.In short... great movie, don't read the book first and you'll love both!