*** Official TIMELINE Review Thread

Discussion in 'Movies' started by Patrick Sun, Nov 26, 2003.

  1. Patrick Sun

    Patrick Sun Moderator

    Jun 30, 1999
    Likes Received:
    The main problem with Timeline is that the characters in the present are pretty uninteresting and very underwritten for the screen, while the characters in the year 1357 are much more interesting. The story unfolds and just plods along, and it's just ... tepid and very shallow in terms of characterizations given what is happening to them.

    The 3rd and final act is the most interesting part of the movie because you get to see some pretty neat medieval battling going on, while the characters try to not change history with their presence and actions there, but the story relies on the classic time paradox loopiness to explain what they encounter in the first act of the movie and how it comes to occur by them going back in time in the first place.

    Since this was a Richard Donner directed film, I had semi-high hopes, but the movie just never really gives you a good reason to invest yourself in the characters enough to care how things turn up given the setup in the initial first act.

    I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.
  2. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator

    Dec 9, 1998
    Likes Received:
    Real Name:
    This thread is now the Official Review Thread for "Timeline". Please post all HTF member reviews in this thread.

    Any other comments, links to other reviews, or discussion items will be deleted from this thread without warning!

    If you need to discuss those type of issues then I have designated an Official Discussion Thread.

  3. JasonWynia

    JasonWynia Agent

    Nov 11, 2003
    Likes Received:
    I picked this book up last summer on vacation for a quick read and just shook my head when I saw the first trailer for it. It's not just the movie. The characters were uninteresting in the book too.
  4. Ruben Zamora

    Ruben Zamora Stunt Coordinator

    Sep 5, 2000
    Likes Received:
    I thought this was the worst movie I have seen in a while.

    The filming was shot terribly. NO WIDE angle shots whatsoever, I felt like it was shot in the directors backyard. The acting was just HORRIBLE, but what do you expect from an actor who does a sequel to fast and furious LOL...

    I just never got the feeling it was actually taken place back in midevil times.

    I give it
    [​IMG] out of [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
  5. Michael Reuben

    Michael Reuben Studio Mogul

    Feb 12, 1998
    Likes Received:
    The most interesting thing I learned from this movie was that 14th century France had much better dental care than anyone previously thought. Also that 14th century Frenchwomen spoke excellent English, when necessary.

    The film isn't authentic enough to be taken straight and isn't honest enough about its cheeiness to make it entertaining as a goof. Considering that it was shot by Caleb Deschanel and Vilmos Zsigmond, it's astonishingly dull to look at, and considering that it was directed by Donner, it's astonishingly slack. Avoid at all costs.


    P.S. Why did I see it? I unexpectedly had Wednesday afternoon free and couldn't take in the movies that really interest me this weekend (In America, The Cooler) because my wife wasn't free to join me.

    P.P.S. Reminder: This is the REVIEW thread. Follow-up comments belong in the DISCUSSION thread (link above). And as it says in every Review thread, "Any other comments, links to other reviews, or discussion items will be deleted from this thread without warning!"

Share This Page