The Time Machine (2002)

The review text is behind a registration wall, so its verdict cannot be determined. No specific praise or complaint is visible in the accessible material.

The page could not be accessed, so the critic’s verdict and specific praise or complaint cannot be verified. The URL identifies a film review, but provides no review text to summarize.

The review’s standfirst expresses concern about the retooled version. It singles out the 1960 George Pal adaptation as the point of comparison.

Gonzalez finds the film an uneven, ultimately disappointing mix of jokes and schlock. He singles out the brevity of Jeremy Irons’s cameo as especially tragic, alongside stiff direction and ineffectual effects.

Phipps finds the film engaging but not gripping, criticizing its lack of ideas. He praises the frightening Morlocks and the lyrical time-travel sequences.

The critic finds the remake dull, philosophically muddled and too reliant on digital effects and action-movie conventions. They fault its inability to tell the familiar story without resorting to standard heroics.

Mackie finds the adaptation respectful but ultimately disappointing. He praises Guy Pearce’s lead performance, while complaining that the original film remains more memorable.

Thomas finds the film engaging at first but says it deteriorates into a formulaic action movie. He praises the early visual effects and the film’s echoes of H.G. Wells and George Pal’s version, while faulting its excessive CGI.

McCarthy finds that the film starts promisingly but becomes a generic, disappointing effects-driven adventure as it moves into the distant future. He praises the early period atmosphere and Orlando Jones’s amusing hologram, while faulting the reworked Morlocks and the loss of the story’s wit and philosophical depth.

Kermode finds the film an effective, entertaining diversion despite its clunky script and uneven performances. She praises the impressively staged Morlock sequences and the visual impact of the broken moon.