Cheap Timeline (Widescreen Edition) (DVD) (Paul Walker, Gerard Butler, Billy Connolly) (Richard Donner) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of Timeline (Widescreen Edition)

Fans of Crichton Comfortable; Newbies Confused
For anyone who dreams of traveling back in time and seeing medieval knights, the movie Timeline is right up your alley. But if you're expecting a deep plot and brilliant screen acting, you'd be better off watching The Lord of the Rings trilogy based on J. R. R. Tolkein's masterpiece work. However, Timeline's author is no amateur either. Michael Crichton is the bestseller author of more than fifteen novels that have been adapted to the movie screen: including Jurassic Park, Congo, Twister, and The Andromeda Strain. He is also the writer of the popular television series ER.

The basic gist of the story revolves around a group of student archeologists uncovering the ruins of a French castle. They discover a 600-year-old document in a sealed tomb with Professor Johnston's (Billy Connolly) handwriting on it. This is puzzling because they are the first people in the tomb since its sealing centuries before. The Professor, who recently left to visit their sponsor in New Mexico, has somehow traveled back in time to the 14th century. Chris (Paul Walker), the Professor's son, leads the students on an investigation that takes them halfway across the world and 600 years back in time. Dodging English knights and trying not to screw up the timeline, the group races against the clock to save the missing Professor and escape the fate of imprisonment in 14th century France.

Timeline disappoints fans of the well-established director Richard Donner (best known for the Superman series, Lethal Weapon series, and my personal favorite The Goonies). Two major flaws by Donner cause this film to falter. His first mistake originates from the choice of the source text. Timeline's story proves too difficult for the accomplished director to adapt to the movie screen. Michael Crichton's 600-page novel takes the time to delve into the science behind time travel, while the two-hour movie rushes it along with no explanation. Unlike Timeline, The Lord of the Rings is able to make the adjustment from book to movie only because it is broken into three separate three hour films.

It is this attention to detail that accomplishes the book and the lack thereof that devastates the movie. Because I am a fan of the novel and I already know the minutiae of the story, it's easier for me to enjoy the action while ignoring the hasty plot. Those unfamiliar with the tale will find the weak explanation given by the movie of 'How you can fax a person back in time' unbelievable.

The second flaw of the directing results from poor casting. Paul Walker's teen roles in Varsity Blues and 2 Fast and 2 Furious suit him well, but his pop star persona clashes with the scholarly archeological setting in France. Billy Connolly gives a believable performance, but his brief role is unable to salvage the weak lead role.

Despite the flaws, I enjoyed it. Being a fan of Michael Crichton, I have been looking forward to the film for the last couple of years and regardless of Paul Walker's acting, the movie was worth the money I paid to see it, although non-fans might be disappointed.

---

Zero artistic effort here
What a lazy, sophomoric effort by Richard Donner. I read Timeline a few years ago and I recall enjoying it. It wasn't great literature, but it was fast and fun and I looked forward to the film version. I regret to report that I honestly can't think of one single redeeming feature in this sorry excuse of a film. A script that butchers the book, which is amazing in itself. Crichton practically writes his novels for the screen these days. Uninspired directing. In the past Donner has given us some fine work like Ladyhawk and Lethal Weapon. It was painfully obvious that the person who made this turd just did not care if it was good or not. The cast was barely adequate, with only Gerard Butler making any kind of impression. The action scenes were cable TV quality, as were the sets and costumes. How bad was this movie? Congo (another Crichton novel that was mugged by the filmakers), by comparison, was a good movie. Zero artistic effort here. Sub-zero, if there is such a thing.

---

Could have been better
Abraham doesnt sound like too intelligent of a reviewer so I will try and make sense of it.

The movie is entertaining, if LOOSELY based off the incredible book by Michael Crichton. (Abraham, i suggest you read the book before blathering off about something you know nothing about)

There are plot holes, bad acting, and less than stellar wardrobes. But if you have read the book, it is still entertaining to see the characters on screen and see the story in action.