Interesteg
What makes it different from others?
Exoticalot
People are voting emotionally.
Neive Bellamy
Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.
Billy Ollie
Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable
wes-connors
In what looks like a war setting, an ugly special effects monster attacks and begins to eat a military man. His companions are also attacked, as they escape. After the opening credits, the setting switches to a book tour with David Hewlett (as James Radnor). He's written a book on time travel. Considered an expert on the subject, Mr. Radnor is summoned by the US Army to go on a mission into the future. The ugly special effects monsters are "Morlocks" from the future. They must be stopped. There are also some Marines lost in the future, who should not be left behind. Meanwhile, in the present, Robert Picardo (as Wichita) schemes...With almost complete disregard for story-telling, this was adapted from H.G. Wells' classic "The Time Machine" (1895). The conflict between military man Robert Picardo (as Wichita) and DNA scientist Jim Fyfe (as Felix Watkins) is a small highlight. There are millions of people who'd love to make low-budget movies, and the Syfy Channel gets away with airing such wretched wastes of resources. Television anthologies from the 1950s and TV Movies of the Week from the 1960s were more consistently enjoyable. This one should have spent less time on special effects and more time letting us know what was happening in the story.** Morlocks (9/24/11) Matt Codd ~ David Hewlett, Christina Cole, Robert Picardo, Jim Fyfe
plinko2004
While none would claim "Morlocks" to be an award-worthy film, by Syfy's standards it was good until a few major mistakes ruined all that it had built up.The title is somewhat misleading. It is not a remake of "The Time Machine"; it is more of a reimagining of the main concepts, even moreso than the Guy Pearce remake from 2002.The plot: In 2012, a team of military scientists led by the overbearing, results-oriented Colonel Wichita (Robert Picardo) create a stable, functioning time machine. However, the first mission to the future goes disastrously wrong when the team of soldiers sent to the future find the world completely destroyed before being wiped out by mysterious humanoid creatures, losing the Latch - a small computer device used to control the time machine - in the process.Dr. Radnor (David Hewlett), the former head of the project, is summoned back by current project head - and ex-wife - Angela (Christina Cole) at Wichita's order. After learning that his technology was completed by the remaining scientists, led by Angela and Dr. Felix Watkins (Jim Fyfe), Radnor is tasked with leading a team into the future to find, repair and return the Latch. As their quest gets underway, the mission is complicated by missing soldiers lost in the future, Angela's need of rescue, and looming threats of the creatures - the Morlocks - and Wichita's motives, which are far more personal than the hunt for future weaponry he claimed.The good: Despite being far more generic than the original "Time Machine" story, the film tells a fairly decent story. By Syfy standards the acting is not bad; Hewlett and Picardo turn in solid performances while Jim Fyfe steals his scenes as the mad scientist Dr. Watkins. The main settings - a dreary futuristic army base and the ruins of the future - fit the film's mood.The bad: The usual Syfy creature inconsistencies are present; the Morlocks change size and number repeatedly and their endurance changes based on the demands of the plot.However, this film is undermined by a few fatal errors that create plot holes so large they undermine the entire movie.When Radnor's team first learns of the Morlocks, the soldiers in the future inform them that they learned the name from newspapers they found. However, this undermines the later twist that the "future" is actually only 68 years later, as none of the soldiers ever mention such information despite it being readily available on the papers.Even worse, the rules of time travel are completely broken. Wichita's motive is to obtain a cure from the future for his cancer-ridden son, which he finds in Morlock DNA. This sets up the twist that his son is actually the first Morlock and his transformation is the event that destroyed the future. However, the future exists before Wichita's son was transformed, which is impossible; the Morlock DNA had to be found for his son to transform, but said DNA didn't exist until he transformed and the future was destroyed.
GL84
After opening a wormhole into the future, a scientific research team and a military cover try to provide security against a swarm of ravenous creatures that have escaped from the future into the present time.This one definitely has it's moments, namely from the fact that the creatures here are definitely quite vicious and generate some brutal kills for their part, leading to a lot of blood-splatter throughout. The showdown in the lab finale also generates some really intriguing action shootouts due to the overwhelming swarm of creatures appearing and the attempts to take them out, though there is some problems in the fact that there's a little too much CGI in here, as the creatures, bloodshed and various high-tech weaponry are all rather poorly animated and the quantity gets distracting. Also, the technobabble about time-travel and wormholes, with all that scientific jargon, gets confusing after awhile since it doesn't seem to provide any clues as to what's going on and doesn't really help the film out, though this is certainly far from the worst that they've provided.Rated Unrated/R: Graphic Violence and Adult Language.
Livewire242
"Morlocks" are a race from H. G. Wells' "The Time Machine". When I see this in the TV listings, I'm thinking SyFy has come up with a fun new spin on the story. But other than the fact that time travel figures in to the story peripherally, there's no similarity at all. Even for SyFy, known for its dreadful production values, this is an all-time worst.The CGI is so bad it would have been embarrassing in the 90s. Today, it's unforgivable. The director (if they actually had one) gave up even having the actors pretend to fire their guns and just animated muzzle flashes on them--even on the guns that weren't aimed at the enemy.Things like breaking glass and tanks busting through walls look like they were animated by first-week film school students who just started learning CGI.David Hewlett shows that he is perfectly capable of playing the exact same character in everything he does, as does Robert Picardo.I have no idea how I managed to watch the whole thing. But at no point did I consider my time well spent.