Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Ginger Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

rickchris-141-832806 Most of Michael Crichton's novels--they are truly masterful--have been superbly represented in the movies made from them. This one is the exception. It has been noted elsewhere that the battle scenes are pretty good, and I agree, but for the most part, the movie and the book are only tentatively related.It is hard to know even where to begin, there is so much to criticize, but let's have a go at a few things. One might ask why two female characters in the book suddenly became men in the movie when their femaleness is necessary to the plot, and there is no discernible reason for the change. The acting, to be charitable, is very uneven, and the script is hardly a work of art--nor even particularly workmanlike. And the movie could not have been shot on film, because the lighting and daylight images have all the charm of stark and harshly lit soap operas, especially closeups.If you are attending the Daughters of the Serbian Revolution convention, and they are selling this DVD for 50 cents in their bargain bin, buy it if you want to favor someone you don't like with a gift. Otherwise, don't bother.

WakenPayne It has been quite a while since I saw this but I have seen this movie twice, once about half a year ago and the other time as a kid. The plot is that a group of archaeologists are digging up a castle but when one of the archaeologist's father goes missing, they also happen to find some of his distinctive belongings inside the site, even carbon dated back 600 years, when England was feudal with France. They find out that his father was part of an experiment to actually go back 600 years thanks to a time machine. They must go back, rescue him and leave. The acting is standard, the plot is pretty dull when they go back in time, they find the father almost instantly - but no. It just pads out the story more for the next hour. To it's credit, I do like the idea but a problem is that it takes advantage of almost none of the mystery that it could inspire. It's not a bad movie but at the end of the day, it's not very good.

darosslfc As is true in so many cases, the book, Timeline, is way better than the movie. But that doesn't mean the movie isn't fun though. It is based on the Michael Crichton's novel by the same name. Crichton is responsible for many great books, but is most known for Jurassic Park, which was famously adapted by Spielberg. With this being said you can definitely expect a story with a great premise. Timeline follows a group of archaeologists who are digging a site at Castleguard, France. They are funded by a technology company, ITC, and have been receiving hints about their site to the point where the boss, Professor Johnston (Billy Connolly), becomes suspicious. He goes to find out what the back story is and the next day his crew discovers a new room at the site which has a note left by the professor from 14th century France. The professor's son, Chris (Paul Walker), and the crew led by Kate Ericson (Frances O'Connor) and Andre Marek (Gerard Butler) go to ITC to find out what is going on. They learn that the company built a 3d fax machine that tapped into a wormhole sending its packages, or in this case humans, back to 14th century Castleguard, France. The group then heads back in time to go save the professor, who was sent back there to figure out the connection of the wormhole and their site. While the film has a great premise it probably would have been a lot better if it was made ten years later with a bigger budget. The story starts off strong, but then proceeds to tail off into B-movie territory. It has some performances by actors you will know, but the script doesn't help them, and it certainly doesn't reach the highs of the book. By no means is this a success, but it does well to keep you entertained if you're just looking for a movie that will be a time killer.

captainm25 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.