On January 5, 1900, a disheveled looking H.G. Wells - George to his friends - arrives late to his own dinner party. He tells his guests of his travels in his time machine, the work about which his friends knew. They were also unbelieving, and skeptical of any practical use if it did indeed work. George knew that his machine was stationary in geographic position, but he did not account for changes in what happens over time to that location. He also learns that the machine is not impervious and he is not immune to those who do not understand him or the machine's purpose. George tells his friends that he did not find the Utopian society he so wished had developed. He mentions specifically a civilization several thousand years into the future which consists of the subterranean morlocks and the surface dwelling eloi, who on first glance lead a carefree life. Despite all these issues, love can still bloom over the spread of millennia.Written by
In the early 1960s my mother used to take my younger sister and me to a nearby one-screen theater to see Saturday kiddie matinees. It was a great way to keep us entertained and out of her hair for a few hours, particularly after our baby sister was born.
One movie I saw during those matinees was the 1960 version of The Time Machine. It made such an impression on me that, for quite a while afterward, I would play Time Machine with my sister and cousin with me as the Time Traveler.
It wasn't until sometime in the 1990s that I was able to see it again when I got a VHS copy. It was very much the way I remembered it to be. I have since read the book and have found that the movie is quite faithful to the text, though some scenes involving two stops in the 1900s were added and a few bright spots appeared that weren't in the book, which is pretty dark.
The special effects look primitive by today's standards, but they did win the Academy Award for Special Effects in 1961, and rightfully so, though I have no idea what other films had been nominated.
This is still one of my top 10 movies and likely always will be. I haven't seen the 2002 version, which is probably just as well, since I'm happy with the 1960 version and don't want to ruin it.
107 of 117 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this