User Score
4.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 55 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 19 out of 55
  2. Negative: 28 out of 55
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Chris
    Jan 20, 2004
    6
    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
  2. GregT.
    Apr 20, 2004
    5
    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 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
  3. StaceyG.
    May 14, 2004
    6
    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 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
  4. RobertC.
    Dec 1, 2003
    4
    [**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[**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
  5. JoeyM.
    Dec 1, 2003
    5
    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 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
  6. Sep 13, 2014
    6
    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
    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
Metascore
28

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 32 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 32
  2. Negative: 17 out of 32
  1. Glorious so-bad-it's-good entertainment.
  2. Reviewed by: Robert Koehler
    40
    Lacks the consistent tone, pace and point of view for either a science fiction thriller or medieval war adventure.
  3. 38
    Boring and repetitive.