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.

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

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

Terrible.

Unintentionally funny and predictable. My roommates and I kept calling out the lines before they were said by the characters.

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.

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

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.

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

[**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

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

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.

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.

Blashphemy to even compare this to Jurassic Park. Timeline was horrific from start to finish with amateurs as actors. Simply disgraceful.

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.

A joke of a movie - bad acting - terrible story - waste of time.

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.

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.… Collapse

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