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. MattK.
    Dec 18, 2003
    0
    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 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
  2. Dwayne
    Jan 3, 2004
    0
    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.
  3. MaxwellSykes
    Apr 20, 2004
    1
    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.
  4. 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
  5. BarbaraT.
    Apr 14, 2004
    1
    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!
  6. NicolasO.
    Nov 27, 2003
    8
    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.
  7. ChadS.
    Nov 28, 2003
    3
    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 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
  8. ConnnieR.
    Dec 10, 2003
    0
    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.
  9. GoliathG.
    Dec 9, 2003
    0
    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 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. Collapse
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. MattM.
    Jun 2, 2004
    0
    Terrible.
  13. Jennifer
    Mar 6, 2006
    0
    Unintentionally funny and predictable. My roommates and I kept calling out the lines before they were said by the characters.
  14. Justin
    Jul 25, 2006
    10
    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.
  15. Tyler
    Nov 27, 2003
    2
    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 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
  16. DrewB.
    Nov 28, 2003
    1
    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.
  17. MatthewS.
    Nov 28, 2003
    8
    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 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. LaneR.
    Dec 23, 2003
    0
    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.
  21. TheNarc
    Dec 24, 2003
    1
    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.
  22. Henry
    Jan 29, 2004
    0
    Blashphemy to even compare this to Jurassic Park. Timeline was horrific from start to finish with amateurs as actors. Simply disgraceful.
  23. JugsterJam
    May 14, 2004
    9
    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.
  24. GregA.
    Jun 12, 2004
    2
    A joke of a movie - bad acting - terrible story - waste of time.
  25. AndrewL.
    Nov 28, 2003
    8
    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.
  26. MattK.
    Dec 18, 2003
    0
    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 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
  27. MattK.
    Dec 18, 2003
    0
    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 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
  28. 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.