Paramount Pictures | Release Date: November 26, 2003
4.3
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 62 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
20
Mixed:
12
Negative:
30
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
0
MattK.Dec 18, 2003
I saw this movie right after seeing master and commander because i had time to kill. i never thought it looked any good, but the only other movie playing was brother bear, so i choose timeline. i think i would of preferred watching brother I saw this movie right after seeing master and commander because i had time to kill. i never thought it looked any good, but the only other movie playing was brother bear, so i choose timeline. i think i would of preferred watching brother bear now. from the awful plot, the lame special effects, and the "wormholes" in the story, this movie is disgusting. the acting is so unbelievably atrocious, i mean oh my god, i cant even begin to explain.....that french dude francois doesn't deserve to be in a home video for crying out loud, and yet he gets that salary while anyone else in the world would be better cast. maybe he's a cool guy, but what were they thinking? the dialog sucks big time, making no sense, the love story is baseless, the action isn't 1/10,000,000 as good as any scene from one of the lord of the rings movies. this ruined my "good movie feeling" i had from watching master and commander, and i hope someone punishes these people. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
SimpsonFansSep 15, 2016
Don't listen to the critics. I had a wild time watching this good movie compared to Doctor Who, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and Back To The Future.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
0
JenniferMar 6, 2006
Unintentionally funny and predictable. My roommates and I kept calling out the lines before they were said by the characters.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JustinJul 25, 2006
The problem with the users is that most of them probably never read the book. The movie was incredibly well done and was fairly accurate with the book. The movie by itself was good enough to be called incredible. A great movie from a great book.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
DwayneJan 3, 2004
Simply the worst movie ever made from every point of view. It is so bad that you need to see it to understand how truly bad it is.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
GoliathG.Dec 9, 2003
Let me preface my remarks in that I love science fiction and especially time travel movies. Timeline was worse than a B movie. The acting was appalling. It was so bad it appeared that some of the actors were taken off of the street? There Let me preface my remarks in that I love science fiction and especially time travel movies. Timeline was worse than a B movie. The acting was appalling. It was so bad it appeared that some of the actors were taken off of the street? There was no character development, no dialogue, just killing and looting followed by some more killing. It is unbelievable that the names associated with this movie turned out such a poor product. It is an unmitigated disaster. Avoid at all costs. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MattK.Dec 18, 2003
I saw this movie right after seeing master and commander because i had time to kill. i never thought it looked any good, but the only other movie playing was brother bear, so i choose timeline. i think i would of preferred watching brother I saw this movie right after seeing master and commander because i had time to kill. i never thought it looked any good, but the only other movie playing was brother bear, so i choose timeline. i think i would of preferred watching brother bear now. from the awful plot, the lame special effects, and the "wormholes" in the story, this movie is disgusting. the acting is so unbelievably atrocious, i mean oh my god, i cant even begin to explain.....that french dude francois doesn't deserve to be in a home video for crying out loud, and yet he gets that salary while anyone else in the world would be better cast. maybe he's a cool guy, but what were they thinking? the dialog sucks big time, making no sense, the love story is baseless, the action isn't 1/10,000,000 as good as any scene from one of the lord of the rings movies. this ruined my "good movie feeling" i had from watching master and commander, and i hope someone punishes these people. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
LaneR.Dec 23, 2003
Saying this movie sucked would be too kind. No words to describe this mess. As for the actors, you have to be kidding? Elementary kids can do better than they did. It's an abomination.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
TheNarcDec 24, 2003
When I left the movie I said to myself, "Wait so this wasn't Fast and the Furious 3?"... Thats just how forgettable and bad it was.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MattK.Dec 18, 2003
I saw this movie right after seeing master and commander because i had time to kill. i never thought it looked any good, but the only other movie playing was brother bear, so i choose timeline. i think i would of preferred watching brother I saw this movie right after seeing master and commander because i had time to kill. i never thought it looked any good, but the only other movie playing was brother bear, so i choose timeline. i think i would of preferred watching brother bear now. from the awful plot, the lame special effects, and the "wormholes" in the story, this movie is disgusting. the acting is so unbelievably atrocious, i mean oh my god, i cant even begin to explain.....that french dude francois doesn't deserve to be in a home video for crying out loud, and yet he gets that salary while anyone else in the world would be better cast. maybe he's a cool guy, but what were they thinking? the dialog sucks big time, making no sense, the love story is baseless, the action isn't 1/10,000,000 as good as any scene from one of the lord of the rings movies. this ruined my "good movie feeling" i had from watching master and commander, and i hope someone punishes these people. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
ConnnieR.Dec 10, 2003
There aren't any words to describe how painfully bad this film is. Were these really professional actors because you could have fooled me? The entire movie was disjointed from start to finish. Avoid at all costs.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
GregA.Jun 12, 2004
A joke of a movie - bad acting - terrible story - waste of time.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MattM.Jun 2, 2004
Terrible.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
NicolasO.Nov 27, 2003
The book's great, but the movie is, as always, a little less good. Still a good action movie, with an interesting story. The only questionable thing is the choice of actor. Walker is almost a 3rd role here. The real attraction here is The book's great, but the movie is, as always, a little less good. Still a good action movie, with an interesting story. The only questionable thing is the choice of actor. Walker is almost a 3rd role here. The real attraction here is G. Butler. He has it all, and he's real good. Less than the book, but still a very good movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
RobertC.Dec 1, 2003
[**SPOILER**] Having read the book for the first time coincendently at the time I learned of the movie, I had somewhat high hopes for it. I enjoyed the book because of the smooth pace, grounded science, the reality of history, and great[**SPOILER**] Having read the book for the first time coincendently at the time I learned of the movie, I had somewhat high hopes for it. I enjoyed the book because of the smooth pace, grounded science, the reality of history, and great characterization. But once I saw the trailer, I started to have doubts about if the director was only gonna do the action rather than what made the book great. To enhance her imagination, not our senses. I didn't mind the casting nor the director. But once I saw the movie... Disappointment. The beginning was at a very jerky pace, failed to explain Doniger's history, and didn't take the ABSOLUTELY NECCESARY time for the science to evenlope. The pace was already tarnished because Hollywood thinks the audience wouldn't care for the approiantate 36 hours and shrinking it down to "action-common" 6 hours. The acting wasn't too bad, but the characterization was damaged by the changes, like why they changed Diane Kramer (a very interesting character) into Kramer (who had a cliche role). For God's sake, the death scenes that Crichton used to force the realism of the past were changed such as MS!!! Gomez's beheading and SPOILERS! Donigner's trip to 1347 during the Black Plague. Sadly, I was expecting a disappointment and I got a disappointment. Nice job, Hollywood. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
DrewB.Nov 28, 2003
I'm not sure which was worse, the awful diaglog, the uninspired acting, or the giant wormholes in the plot. Don't even waste your money on the video. And yes, I did love the book.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
MatthewS.Nov 28, 2003
I've not read the book, and I was entertained. For my money, the bad dialogue and questionable plotting where superceded by the almost non-stop (if arguably incomprehensible, or what have you) action of the film. Some, of course, may I've not read the book, and I was entertained. For my money, the bad dialogue and questionable plotting where superceded by the almost non-stop (if arguably incomprehensible, or what have you) action of the film. Some, of course, may see this as a downside, but there are times when sheer visceral thrill--with little thinking involved--provides exactly what one is looking for: a light little bit of (silly) entertainment. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
HenryJan 29, 2004
Blashphemy to even compare this to Jurassic Park. Timeline was horrific from start to finish with amateurs as actors. Simply disgraceful.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
ChadS.Nov 28, 2003
Caleb Deschanel shot "Fly Away Home", one of my all-time favorite films, so it was a little disturbing to see his name on the screen. "Timeline" is pretty awful, and it's a toss-up as to what's more ludicrous; the time spent Caleb Deschanel shot "Fly Away Home", one of my all-time favorite films, so it was a little disturbing to see his name on the screen. "Timeline" is pretty awful, and it's a toss-up as to what's more ludicrous; the time spent running away from danger, or pedestrian dialogue that borders on "House of the Dead"-bad. These archaeologists sound like they got their degrees from community college. "Timeline" is so cheesy, we're denied an obligatory exciting special effect to accompany their travel back to the 14th century. And when the Frances O'Connor character escapes from her holding cell to free the others, she climbs a roof in broad daylight and in clear view of everybody, and takes a bloody, long time, yet nobody sees her. "Timeline" plays like a movie made for basic cable. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JoeyM.Dec 1, 2003
As I walked out of this movie, I had a bit of debate with myself. "What was there to like?" I asked myself. "What was there not to like?" I replied. I certainly wouldn't say I had a bad time - the effects were good. On the other hand, As I walked out of this movie, I had a bit of debate with myself. "What was there to like?" I asked myself. "What was there not to like?" I replied. I certainly wouldn't say I had a bad time - the effects were good. On the other hand, I'm not sure I can fairly say I had a good time - the script and acting were forgetable. Overall, I would say this is one of the most average times I've had at the movie. Should you see it? Well, yes and no. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
TylerNov 27, 2003
This book is amazing, no doubt about it but what this movie did to it is horrible. The first big mistake was the casting, paul walker is in no way shape or form able to a play a part in any serious movie. And although Merek was cast ok, i This book is amazing, no doubt about it but what this movie did to it is horrible. The first big mistake was the casting, paul walker is in no way shape or form able to a play a part in any serious movie. And although Merek was cast ok, i think anyone who has read the book would apreciate the burly and overpowering prescene of merek not to be hollywoodized into a simple hero. Why did they not focus on the asspects that made this book great, real science, great characters and brutal realism. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
AndrewL.Nov 28, 2003
Good, fun movie. As always, the movie did not do justice to the book. The plot suffered from overediting of the script. Paul Walker is a rising star.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ChrisJan 20, 2004
A good FUN movie to watch ! Not a movie that you'll remember in a year or two but one which was fun to watch. If you're looking for an intellectual movie (like most of the other reviewers) you'll be disappointed. Typical A good FUN movie to watch ! Not a movie that you'll remember in a year or two but one which was fun to watch. If you're looking for an intellectual movie (like most of the other reviewers) you'll be disappointed. Typical Crichton action/adventure like Jurassic park Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
MaxwellSykesApr 20, 2004
I guess this is what happens when you read the book before watching the movie. But don't let this turn you away from the book, its MUCH better.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
GregT.Apr 20, 2004
This movie was an historical pseudo-drama with a sh.tload of sword play and archery and battles. It is okay if you want action with an historical bent. However, in the first half hour of the movie, the time travellers kill about 5 men living This movie was an historical pseudo-drama with a sh.tload of sword play and archery and battles. It is okay if you want action with an historical bent. However, in the first half hour of the movie, the time travellers kill about 5 men living in the year 1357. This would mean that about 120,000 people who are currently living on this planet would disappear off the face of the earth, as one cannot go back in time and kill people without having a major impact on every year after A.D. 1357. Know what I mean? (grin). Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
BarbaraT.Apr 14, 2004
As a history teacher for the NYC BOE, I thought this movie would prompt students to enjoy viewing history as a time traveler. I cannot believe that this movie actually made medieval times seem insignificant. Gerard Butler carried the movie As a history teacher for the NYC BOE, I thought this movie would prompt students to enjoy viewing history as a time traveler. I cannot believe that this movie actually made medieval times seem insignificant. Gerard Butler carried the movie and the other actors appeared to be put in this movie because they are "young and popular" -- they did nothing to make this movie fly! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
StaceyG.May 14, 2004
Timeline is expertly shot but somewhere along the line it falls into the "cheesy" thriller catagory. Paul Walker is a decent young actor and the rest of the cast does a decent job, especialy Gerarld Butler as Audre Mareck. The man whose bad Timeline is expertly shot but somewhere along the line it falls into the "cheesy" thriller catagory. Paul Walker is a decent young actor and the rest of the cast does a decent job, especialy Gerarld Butler as Audre Mareck. The man whose bad luck helps him fall in love with the doomed Lady Claire. Anna Freil who plays Claire puts up a good performance that is often overlooked during the movie. The cast is good and the veteran supporting actors help keep the movie afloat. Franes O Conner however seems Frozen and unable to give us any emotion. The film is often predictable and the action is often a little fake but the movie has good intentions and it starts of pretty good. Timeline is not a good movie, but it is not a bad movie either. Ok to rent but i'm very glad i did not go see it in the theatres. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JugsterJamMay 14, 2004
Movie was worth the time and I can even say I watched it again on dvd. No bad acting in the movie, it's fast paced exciting, historically like your high school history book coming alive in your mind. Accurate battles, location, and Movie was worth the time and I can even say I watched it again on dvd. No bad acting in the movie, it's fast paced exciting, historically like your high school history book coming alive in your mind. Accurate battles, location, and gear. I have watched just about every dvd released and this is one of the best in past months. The movie pace keeps up with the factual TIMELINE. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MovieReviews101Sep 13, 2014
erdict: Not Quite There

Story: Ever film that is based on time travel tries to find something different to make it stand out, and I will give this one credit. It does pose a different idea to what we are used too, the whole 3D fax machine
erdict: Not Quite There

Story: Ever film that is based on time travel tries to find something different to make it stand out, and I will give this one credit. It does pose a different idea to what we are used too, the whole 3D fax machine that creates a wormhole is new but very farfetched. If we are being honest this story is about saving an old man but sacrificing a group of young men who make the trip back. That alone would ask a few questions really. Most of the support cast are solely there to be killed off which leads to even more questions about the point in the mission. (6/10)

Actor Review

Paul Walker: Chris the son of the Professor who doesn’t want to follow in his father’s footsteps, but will drop everything to go on a mission to save his life, even though he should already be dead. Good performance from Walker showing his potential in an early role. (7/10)

walker

Frances O’Connor: Kate one of the team who is determined to find something and will put her work before any relationship. Good performance but in the end is a very annoying character due to over reactions in the past. (6/10)

frances

Gerard Butler: Andre a man with passion for the past, who risks more damage to what has happened when he tries to save Lady Claire from the fate she already suffered. Good performance from Butler who showed he was the action star of the future. (8/10)

gerard

Billy Connolly: Professor Johnston the man behind the dig who has put his career ahead of being a father to Chris, but he gets trapped in the past and calls for his team to risk their own lives to save him. Not the best from Connolly who looks lost a lot of the time, it didn’t help that his character is the catalyst for everything that happened. (4/10)

billy

David Thewlis: Robert the brains behind the time travel operation who fails to tell the team all the risks but shows what he is made of during the story after the machine gets destroyed. Good business man role worrying more about covering himself than the people whose lives he is risking.(7/10)

david

Anna Friel: Lady Claire the lady whose death drove the French to victory but after she gets saved by Andre who is meant to be the motivation for the victory. Good performance pulling off the accents perfectly. (8/10)

lady clare

Neal McDonough: Frank the solider sent back to protect the team with his experience of previous trips, but he gets more than he has bargained for. Good performance in a supporting disposable character role. (6/10)

neal

Director Review: Richard Donner – I think it would be fair to say this film was a little bit too ambitious to put to film without any real major stars at the time and a lot gets lost in translation. (6/10)

Action: The battles sequences are big and full of plenty of action. (8/10)

Sci-Fi: The different idea for time travel works really well, but still leaves plenty of questions. (7/10)

Settings: Good authentic settings created for both past and present scenes. (9/10)

Suggestion: This is one to try it is not brilliant but has some good ideas that don’t quite come off but the effort should be given credit. (Try)

Best Part: Andre character steals the show.

Worst Part: Questionable reason for doing the traveling.

Action Scene Of The Film: The final battle.

Favourite Quote: ‘So what you are saying, it that you accidently discovered time travel’. Believability: No (0/10) Chances of Tears: No (0/10) Chances of Sequel: No Post Credits Scene: No Oscar Chances: No Box Office: $44 Million Budget: $80 Million Runtime: 1 Hour 56 Minutes Tagline: One man’s future lie in the past. Overall: Time Travel Film Lost In Time
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
TiberScientistNov 10, 2016
This historical fictional Paramount family feature is just compared to Doctor Who, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Chicken Run and Back To The Future.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
KrabsAbsNov 23, 2016
This historical fictional Paramount family feature is just compared to Doctor Who, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Chicken Run and Back To The Future.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews