The Time Machine

[NewYorkSpider]

Which film did you think was better? The 1960 version or the 2002 version. I like both films, but I recently got done watching the older version and thought it was better. Good performances by a well put together cast and a good script.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

The 2002 has got lots of elements I like very much (production design, Guy Pierce, Jeremy Irons) but never quite works for me.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

I think Jeremy Irons/Uber Morlock deserved more screentime. He is a superb actor and nails almost every role he is in. But the 5-10 minutes he is in really upset me.

 

[A.J.Rimmer(BSC)]

I really enjoyed the recent Timer Machine, but the older one is the more original and brilliant for its time. I'm 50/50.

 

[xwolverine2]

i didnt like how he went to the future which looked like the stone age.... everything before it was great, especially the future

 

[Immortalfire]

The 1960 version actually follows the book, for the most part. Scientific curiosity about mankind, and where we're going. 2002 film is all "oh my fiance got shot, let me go back in time to save her." What a load.

Rod Taylor FTW!

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The 2002 version is pure s**t on wheels. I haven't seen the other version but I read the book.

 

[Max J Power]

I've only seen the 2002 version. It was alright.

 

[jimmylace]

i remember seeing the time machine remake in the cinema, and man did it completely suck.

 

[DocHoliday]

They a are both flawed so I'd say theyare about even.

 

[Golgo-13]

i remember seeing the time machine remake in the cinema, and man did it completely suck.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[AhabTheArab]

original in a land slide. new one was absolute garbage.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

The one thing that gets me about the 2002 version is when he travels back in time the first time to save Emma wouldn't he have run into his present-day self. And even if he didn't his past self would have asked questions to people on how the accident occured. Yet, the people would have thought he already knew.