Timeline review (link)

[Berandor]

Uh,oh...
http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/t/timeline.html

I generally agree with Berardinelli (as opposed to, say Harry Knowles or Roger Ebert), and I can see how Paul Walker could be that bad.

I secretly hoped for this movie to be good, despite everything on the contrary. ANd now, Richard Donner wants to have PW appear in his next movie, as well - the sequel to "Goonies" (Can you say "AAARGH!" ? And: Did we really need a sequel to Goonies?).

Berandor

 

[aliensex]

1) Yes I can: AAAAAAAARRRRGH!

2) Not without Cindy Lauper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Aaron L]

Thats sad. I kept thinking it would be bad after seeing the trailer and commercials, but I was still hopong it would be good. The book was awesome.

 

[reapersaurus]

My wife and I saw Timeline tonight at a sneak preview.

Elements of it are as bad as anything you'll hear. There are many "Hollywood-isms" thrown into the plot which muck it up and ultimately break the story.
What do I mean "break"?

Spoiler

They go back in time. History is shown to be unchangeable. In history, Lady Claire was killed in front of the French, which incited them into a frenzy, and they overtook the castle. Because of a desire for a Hollywood time-flung romance, the movie conveniently forget that she has to die in the battle. So she doesn't. Voila! Happy ending.

I didn't think the acting was all that bad, but I'm not the kind of moviegoer that is bothered by it. I just thought there were too many liberties taken with the plot, undermining realism all for the sake of silly cliche'd conflicts.

I thought the battle scenes were suitably impressive, especially the trebuchets launching at the castle. For that alone, it's worth seeing.

It's enjoyable enough to watch, if you don't have to pay for it. I wasn't tearing my eyes out, but it's pretty forgettable.