the time machine starts in new york during 1899 where professor alexander hartdegen (guy pearce) proposes to his beloved girlfriend emma (sienna guillory) who accepts and unfortunately just after they are attacked by a mugger and emma is shot dead and dies in alexander arms. jump forward four years later and alexander has built a time machine which he uses to travel back to the night emma was killed in order to save her but she is still killed and only a different way this time. alexander realises whatever he does and however many times he goes back emma will always end up dead one way or another and he yearns to know the answer why so he travels far into the future to discover the truth. however after having destroyed the moon two new races have evolved on earth and the human like eloi and the monstrous morlock that eat the eloi. alexander decides to stick around and save the eloi. directed by simon wells who is actually the great grandson of author h. g. wells who wrote the original the time machine book on which the original the time machine (1960) film was based and it is in fact the 1960 film that producer john logan script is based upon here rather than wells original literally source. while all three share the same basic story and ideas this remake adds the subplot about alexander fiancé emma being killed and that the reason he invents a time machine rather than just because he is clever and he can. the script is a mixture of sci fi and action adventure and drama none of which really grabbed me or engaged me that much and sure there are a few pretty special effects and a few nice action scenes and the moment when alexander question is answered regarding why he can not save emma is actually quite intelligent and makes sense it never really captured my imagination and i was never really moved by it either. the time travel aspects of the time machine feel very similar to terminator 2 represent judgment day (1992) in the sense you can not change the past but at the same time the future is not set only the time machine isn not anywhere near as good a film as terminator 2 represent judgment day. the character are alright although i thought guy pearce just looked too young to be a brainy scientist capable of inventing a time machine and there never any real explanation behind it mechanics either as it like one moment there no time machine the next he has invented and made one and it works perfectly. i reckon the back to the future trilogy offer far more thrills and laughs and excitement and general entertainment value than the time machine ever does and while i will stop short of calling it a bad film since it moves along at a decent pace and tells a reasonable story and has it moments i do not call it brilliant or even particularly good. there is also a cheeky little reference to the book and original film which are both name checked here. the benefit this modern version has over the original is the development of special effects and in particular cgi which leads to scenes of time rapidly passing around alexander in his time machine complete with huge buildings being built and new ridges and canyons and mountains being formed and a elaborate pan back which ends up in space as we see passenger rockets orbiting the moon. the effects work is good and there are one or two moments that look a little below par but generally speaking the effects are good. i saw the time machine on telly and the station playing it badly pan and scanned it so the left and right edges of the frame were cut off the screen thus cutting off part of the year on alexander time machine dial so i actually do not know what year he went to. apparently director gore verbinski took over the last eighteen days of filming as wells was suffering from extreme exhaustion while the imdb says that the time machine itself was the biggest and most expensive prop ever built for a film at that point which i find hard to believe and guy pearce broke a rib during a fight scene but like a trooper carried on. with a supposed budget of about $80 and 000 and 000 the production values are high with a lovingly recreated period new york and good effects work although amazingly the time machine was nominated for an oscar for best make up but lost out to frida (2002). the acting is mixed and jermey irons puts in a good performance in a terrible make up job that has him looking like a reject from a lord of the rings film while singer samantha mumba makes her big screen debut here and is simply terrible although guy pearce is quite good and fairly likable. the time machine isn not a particularly bad film or a particularly good one and just a somewhat unremarkable one that is watchable and passes an hour and a half but not much else. watch back to the future (1985) again instead. 
the time machine starts in new york during 1899 where professor alexander hartdegen (guy pearce) proposes to his beloved girlfriend emma (sienna guillory) who accepts and unfortunately just after they are attacked by a mugger and emma is shot dead and dies in alexander arms. jump forward four years later and alexander has built a time machine which he uses to travel back to the night emma was killed in order to save her but she is still killed and only a different way this time. alexander realises whatever he does and however many times he goes back emma will always end up dead one way or another and he yearns to know the answer why so he travels far into the future to discover the truth. however after having destroyed the moon two new races have evolved on earth and the human like eloi and the monstrous morlock that eat the eloi. alexander decides to stick around and save the eloi. directed by simon wells who is actually the great grandson of author h. g. wells who wrote the original the time machine book on which the original the time machine (1960) film was based and it is in fact the 1960 film that producer john logan script is based upon here rather than wells original literally source. while all three share the same basic story and ideas this remake adds the subplot about alexander fiancé emma being killed and that the reason he invents a time machine rather than just because he is clever and he can. the script is a mixture of sci fi and action adventure and drama none of which really grabbed me or engaged me that much and sure there are a few pretty special effects and a few nice action scenes and the moment when alexander question is answered regarding why he can not save emma is actually quite intelligent and makes sense it never really captured my imagination and i was never really moved by it either. the time travel aspects of the time machine feel very similar to terminator 2 represent judgment day (1992) in the sense you can not change the past but at the same time the future is not set only the time machine isn not anywhere near as good a film as terminator 2 represent judgment day. the character are alright although i thought guy pearce just looked too young to be a brainy scientist capable of inventing a time machine and there never any real explanation behind it mechanics either as it like one moment there no time machine the next he has invented and made one and it works perfectly. i reckon the back to the future trilogy offer far more thrills and laughs and excitement and general entertainment value than the time machine ever does and while i will stop short of calling it a bad film since it moves along at a decent pace and tells a reasonable story and has it moments i do not call it brilliant or even particularly good. there is also a cheeky little reference to the book and original film which are both name checked here. the benefit this modern version has over the original is the development of special effects and in particular cgi which leads to scenes of time rapidly passing around alexander in his time machine complete with huge buildings being built and new ridges and canyons and mountains being formed and a elaborate pan back which ends up in space as we see passenger rockets orbiting the moon. the effects work is good and there are one or two moments that look a little below par but generally speaking the effects are good. i saw the time machine on telly and the station playing it badly pan and scanned it so the left and right edges of the frame were cut off the screen thus cutting off part of the year on alexander time machine dial so i actually do not know what year he went to. apparently director gore verbinski took over the last eighteen days of filming as wells was suffering from extreme exhaustion while the imdb says that the time machine itself was the biggest and most expensive prop ever built for a film at that point which i find hard to believe and guy pearce broke a rib during a fight scene but like a trooper carried on. with a supposed budget of about $80 and 000 and 000 the production values are high with a lovingly recreated period new york and good effects work although amazingly the time machine was nominated for an oscar for best make up but lost out to frida (2002). the acting is mixed and jermey irons puts in a good performance in a terrible make up job that has him looking like a reject from a lord of the rings film while singer samantha mumba makes her big screen debut here and is simply terrible although guy pearce is quite good and fairly likable. the time machine isn not a particularly bad film or a particularly good one and just a somewhat unremarkable one that is watchable and passes an hour and a half but not much else. watch back to the future (1985) again instead. ---------------------------------Answer Question Below----------------------------------

Judge the movie review above, you need to make a function call:
    If you feel the movie review is positive
        print "This is a semantically positive review."
    Otherwise, if you feel the movie review is negative
        print "This is a semantically negative review."
