Timeline (2003)

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

Usually the adaptation of a novel isn't worth the book itself, but sometimes it is. It's not the case of Timeline. I bought the book several months ago and then, when Sky Italy broadcast the film, I saved it on my MySky and I begun to read the novel. It's not the first Crichton's novel I read (before I had read Jurassic Park, The Lost World, A Case Of Need, Rising Sun and State Of Fear) and once I finished Timeline (taking a pretty long time because despite I love reading, I am not a regular reader) I decided it wasn't my favorite one.Today I finally decided to watch the film. The cast looks cool: there are some not-so-famous actors, beyond stars Paul Walker and Gerald Butler, I knew. If you haven't read the novel you can enjoy it as a nice and decent action movie set in the Middle Ages. But if you've read it, well, you'll find some important changes and cuts.The first thing I noticed once the film was finished is that Marek's character isn't well defined, since he decides to stay in the past, but the script doesn't tell us that he has a great passion for this historic period. So a person who hasn't read the book can't understand his choice; you can say that he's in love with Lady Claire, but it's a poor motivation.Then, there are some sequences which aren't in the film: the mill and the tournament scenes are totally cut off from the screenplay.Another basic question is the way the characters keep in touch with radio transceivers. It's important because through this narrative means, in the novel, the characters find out that there is another person from the present day.Lesser important things: the existence of characters created by the film's writers who isn't in the novel (like the French guy who is sent with our heroes to help them with the language, even though in the novel there is a character who knows Occitan) or some changes in certain characters (e.g. Kramer is a woman in the book).Even Doninger's end is slightly different: in the film he's killed by a knight, while in the novel he is sent in 1348, during the Black Death.

I really enjoyed Richard Donner's Timeline, despite some bad reviews and an awful reputation. It's based on a book by the great Michael Crichton, and centers around what is one of the most fascinating and enjoyable premises out there: time travel. There's nothing like a time travel flick, in any way, shape or form. I'm a sucker for them. This one starts off with an archaeological dig somewhere in England, leading to the abrupt discovery of forces that allow a wormhole in time to be used, sending people back to the middle ages. Paul Walker discovers that his researcher father (Billy Connolly) has made the leap back in time, and may be in trouble. Along with his sort of girlfriend (Frances O Connor) and his father's friend (Gerard Butler) they venture back to find him, and of course everything goes wrong. They land smack in the middle of a skirmish between a poncy English lord (Michael Sheen) and the leader of the French faction (Lambert Wilson), with no identities, nothing to defend themselves with and not a clue what to do. Back home in our time (or, rather, 2003. Time flies, don't it?), the head of the program responsible for harnessing the wormhole's power (a slimy David Thewlis) is a greedy prick who can't really be trusted with the technology, prompting the suspicion of his assistant (Matt Craven). Walker, Butler and company are now faced with a full on castle siege that's quite the dandy set piece, forced to take up arms and fight for their lives as well as a way home. Walker is amusingly out of place in a medieval setting but it works considering the plot. Butler is terrific, bringing his old world style to a character arc that is lovely to see play out. Connolly, although not in the film that much, lights up the screen with his genial kindness and likability that he brings to every film. Neal McDonough, Anna Friel and Marton Csokas also costar. It's simply an adventure piece that doesn't think logistics too much, and in turn doesn't require you to do so either. Underrated stuff.

I couldn't believe there was a book to this film. This annoying movie was the first one I saw at the cinema in 2004. I only went, cause some friends were going to see it, and I tagged along. Honestly there were times through this overlong film, watching it, a painful and straining process, I just wanted to leave. I expected this to be a science fiction, in space kind of film, not one of medi evil, so you can imagine my disappointment. It's very start had me excited, then... I expected more from director, Donner, who kind of had me thinking, has he lost the plot. The actors aren't at fault. They give it what they got, lead Walker, a bumbling mess of a performance, that's unconvincing. He's the oversexed son, would you believe of archaeologist, Connely. Bumbling jock, Walker's character, Chris, an avid inventor, only has eyes for Oz's Francis's O'Connor, who's too occupied in her work to care. Walker's scenes kind of do come as a compensation as in what is a slow, dull, 111 minute film, where honestly you want to turn off. When Connelly, is somehow transported 600 years back to medieval times, it's up to Walker (who's acting here, does boost up) and his colleagues to travel back in time and rescue the father. Timeline came as such a disappointment, shamefully wasting so more good actors. Medieval pics like these, to me are only good if they have a lot of gore, and much more is at stake. Timeline's problem painfully lies in the plotting and it's mostly flat journey of too much screen time wasted, and especially the latter of my last sentence. We don't care here, but more so, this formula and story is so old hat, it's quite easy, to lose focus here. Again Mr Donner needs a good talking to. This is not how you approach something like this now. I don't think I ever looked this forward to an ending in my life, and I don't mean the plot either folks.

Timeline is one of my favorite books. After seeing the reviews on IMDb about the movie, I was hesitant to watch it. However, I have to ask- did the other reviewers even READ the book?? Lets be honest people- it's almost impossible to make a movie that follows the book exactly, word for word. It would be a 12 hour film! In my opinion, and this is stated from someone who has read the book numerous times, the movie Timeline does a good job picking up the highlights of the book, keeping as close to possible to the original story. Some of the mumbo-jumbo technical stuff is glossed over in the film, and I praise the screenwriters for that, as adding it would have made a confusing, boring mess to the movie. One of the greatest parts about Hollywood is the use of creative license. Yes, the film uses this during spots, but NOT enough to detract from the book plot. Yes,the acting is definitely not the greatest (with maybe the exception of Matt Craven), but again, NOT enough to detract from the book plot. This film takes what the readers loved about the book and changes very little. I could easily correlate the two. And I challenge the negative reviewers to find me a movie that doesn't change some parts of the book it is based upon. If you like the book, give the movie a chance.