Timeline (2003)

Instant Favorite.

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Boring

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

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.

Overall I liked the movie, but naturally there were some bits that I didn't. I thoroughly enjoyed the plot, although they didn't go too much into why everything was happening. This was explained as 'we have no idea why this is happening, but it is', but by that point it didn't really matter, I just wanted to see some 1357 France.The other thing that I could do without was Kate's acting and constant tripping over air, but other than that the acting was pretty okay. Nostalgia played a big factor in my re-watching of this movie and I didn't regret it. I would recommend it, if you're in the mood for something light and not a movie that takes itself too seriously.

Timeline, starring the late Paul Walker and Gerard Butler, and featuring a large and talented supporting cast, is an underrated film based on a very underrated book by sci-thriller master, the late Michael Crichton.This was always going to be a tricky film to make because the book's story is based on the sci-fi premise of time travel. The film preserves most of Crichton's brilliant plot--a tech firm in the American desert is trying to invent teleportation but stumbles into a wormhole that only sends the transported back in time to the year 1375 and a village in France during the brutal 100 Years' War.The actors making up the principle groups of story characters, the oily and secretive tech guys, the erstwhile archaeology students who get caught up in the tech guys' invention, and the, of course, late medieval English and French combatants the first two groups both travel back in time to encounter, are well-cast and well--directed by Richard Donner. Particular supporting role standouts here are Marton Csokas as Decker, David Thewlis as Doniger and Michael Sheen as 'Lord Oliver.' Anna Friel is perfectly medieval and ladylike yet attractively modern as Lady Clare, and Neal McDonough and Matt Craven post terrific performances as the wayward tech firm's henchmen.What gets left out from the book, what really has to get left out unless Donner et al were to pull a Peter Jackson and stretch Timeline into three films, is the trove of rich, textured, historical detail about virtually every aspect of the little French village and castle combination that the story circles around. The book is, indeed, better than the film, simply because Crichton's historical fiction writing work on all things 'Aquitainian' in Timeline equals or exceeds anything Bernard Cornwell or Tom Clancy have ever put out in terms of nourishing minutiae. But you can't competently get all that in inside a 2 hour film. With the exception of a few scenes where a character here and there is "run through" with a broadsword, Timeline is almost a family- friendly film, something that young people and the mature crowd can enjoy together. Almost, parents, screen it first. Most Crichton fans have never heard of or read Timeline, and most Richard Donner, Paul Walker, and Gerard Butler fans have never seen this very solid little 2003 film. Hopefully those oversights are rectified as time moves forward, because Timeline is an underrated film based on a very underrated book, and that means it deserves an audience.

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.