TIMELINE....OMG what a terrible film!

[sperbonzo]

Jeez! I usually enjoy Michael C's stuff, but this was a total STINKER!

I'm thinking of sueing the company that produced it to get the 2 hours that I wasted back.

The only reason that I didn't just walk out was that the person I was with was CONVINCED that it had to get better sometime, but it never did.

Writing was terrible.....the acting was atrocious. The historical and even logical errors were too numerous to list.....just a farce.

The only way that this would be worth watching is if Mystery Science Theater 3000 does a show on it.

For god's sake! Warn everyone.....this movie SUCKS!

[IntenseCash]

hmm thanks for letting me know... is it worth renting when its out on dvd?

[Hue G. Pness]

i didn't have to watch it to know it would suck. the previews, the plot etc was enough for me to know not to waste my time or money.

[Bulldog-Johnnie]

Michael Crichton's bools rarely tranlate to the csreen every well. I had big hopes for this one but was left feeling a bit flat.

My suggestion is to read yhe book- It kicked ass!

[sperbonzo]

Originally posted by IntenseCash
hmm thanks for letting me know... is it worth renting when its out on dvd?

well...like I said...I was pissed about the fact that I lost two hours out of my life watching the damn thing (as opposed to say, cleaning the toe jam out from my toe nails), so you can draw your own conclusions....

[stevecore]

i'm still pissed off at A Knight's Tale, now there's a sucky medevil movie....

[0zzy]

I enjoyed that movie... I would give it a 9/10 .

[hottoddy]

Originally posted by Bulldog-Johnnie
Michael Crichton's bools rarely tranlate to the csreen every well. I had big hopes for this one but was left feeling a bit flat.

My suggestion is to read yhe book- It kicked ass!

Hmm ... I would suggest the opposite. Crichton writes screenplays first and then pads in some extra stuff for the book. He's a movie-making franchise. Everything he writes is slanted for the screen in some way or another. I read "Timeline" years ago when it first came out. It totally read like an action movie screenplay. People were jumping around on rafters, doing super-human feats, narrowly avoiding capture/death over and over and over.

According to boxofficemojo, "Timeline" has made a whopping 16.8 million in two weeks. It cost over 100 million to make and promote. It will be lucky to make half that back in total revenue (including rentals, dvds, etc.).

[galleryseek]

i've learned never to base your decisions on other people's movie reviews... i've liked a lot of movies that a lot of people would hate...

[sperbonzo]

Originally posted by hottoddy


Hmm ... I would suggest the opposite. Crichton writes screenplays first and then pads in some extra stuff for the book. He's a movie-making franchise. Everything he writes is slanted for the screen in some way or another. I read "Timeline" years ago when it first came out. It totally read like an action movie screenplay. People were jumping around on rafters, doing super-human feats, narrowly avoiding capture/death over and over and over.

According to boxofficemojo, "Timeline" has made a whopping 16.8 million in two weeks. It cost over 100 million to make and promote. It will be lucky to make half that back in total revenue (including rentals, dvds, etc.).

Plus there are just SO MANY silly mistakes in this film. Like everyone in rural medieval France speaks fluent english as a second language.....
in one scene an English knight yells for the archers to "Fire!" (they wouldn't have said this in 1357...they would have said "loose"...they only yelled "fire" when actual guns and cannons were invented).....
the fact that in a small village in those times nobody would notice 6 strange people out of the blue when everyone in those times was born, lived and died in about a 20 mile radius....
The horses were the SLOWEST HORSES EVER, and every person on foot could outrun them.....
A French commander give a horse away to a total stranger, just before an upcoming battle.....this in a time when horses were extremely valueble and a man on horseback was worth ten men on the ground, (like handing someone out of the blue an M1 abrams)....

I could go on, and on, and on, and on......

[sperbonzo]

and actually....even with all of the logical and historical mistakes...I could have gotten through it if it wasn't for the really amaturish acting and dialogue....

[ryph]

Originally posted by sperbonzo


Plus there are just SO MANY silly mistakes in this film. Like everyone in rural medieval France speaks fluent english as a second language.....
in one scene an English knight yells for the archers to "Fire!" (they wouldn't have said this in 1357...they would have said "loose"...they only yelled "fire" when actual guns and cannons were invented).....
the fact that in a small village in those times nobody would notice 6 strange people out of the blue when everyone in those times was born, lived and died in about a 20 mile radius....
The horses were the SLOWEST HORSES EVER, and every person on foot could outrun them.....
A French commander give a horse away to a total stranger, just before an upcoming battle.....this in a time when horses were extremely valueble and a man on horseback was worth ten men on the ground, (like handing someone out of the blue an M1 abrams)....

I could go on, and on, and on, and on......

Ok, maybe you can say the acting sucked, the plot was bland, and that it overall sucked (which when I see it, I'll prob agree)
But jeez, it's still a MOVIE, not a documentary. You're analyzing this movie like a history major.

[sperbonzo]

Originally posted by ryph

Ok, maybe you can say the acting sucked, the plot was bland, and that it overall sucked (which when I see it, I'll prob agree)
But jeez, it's still a MOVIE, not a documentary. You're analyzing this movie like a history major.

Fair enough....like I said in the next post...

and actually....even with all of the logical and historical mistakes...I could have gotten through it if it wasn't for the really amaturish acting and dialogue....