Very best movie i ever watch

Too much of everything

Load of rubbish!!

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

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

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.

I often find SyFy movies to be mostly awful movies, but I keep watching them for the novelty value and also to see whether they are ever going to make a worthwhile movie to match their TV series. Well actually, they did do The Lost Future, I personally found that surprisingly good if imperfect. Morlocks sadly is to me another bad movie of theirs.Is it their worst? No, Morlocks is nowhere near as unwatchable as Titanic II, Quantum Apocalypse, Battle of Los Angeles, Alien vs. Hunter and 2010: Moby Dick. However it is still not very good. It gets some good points for a good idea and decent turns from Christina Cole and Robert Picardo, though both have shown they can do better with better material.Production values: Pretty lousy really. Morlocks is not the very worst-looking SyFy movie, that's possibly Titanic II, but there's nothing exceptional in how it looks. It is lit in a rather dull way, complete with haphazard editing. The CGI effects are awful, quite possibly the cheapest and most crude effects I've seen in a while, the Morlocks are horribly rendered and don't look scary at all. I do realise that Morlocks, like all of SyFy's resume, is a low-budget film, but I don't think that excuses a lack of quality in the finished products. Like I've said before, it seemed as though they were going for quantity in alternative to quality.Music: Nothing special, in fact rather forgettable and obtrusive even at times. Also a lot of it is in a slow tempo/rhythm, giving a furthermore sluggish feel to the film.Script: To be honest, I wasn't expecting good scripting from SyFy. Even in their few more tolerable efforts, it is one of the weaker assets. It was pretty much what I was anticipating really, cheesy dialogue, a lot of sci-fi babble and technical jargon. In regard to the latter, I got the feeling that even the writers didn't know what they were talking about. The whole "the Morlocks were here" exchange(especially the groan-worthy "because they're American? I don't know" bit) was particularly stupid.Story: Loosely based on HG Wells' The Time Machine, the idea was really good and had the potential to be so. The execution however was bad, worse than bad more than often. The story is told in a very predictable and pedantic fashion, with none of the Morlocks scenes coming across as thrilling, and the build-ups have a complete lack of suspense. Also those looking for an adaptation of The Time Machine will be disappointed, it bears almost no similarity and is no different to almost everything else SyFy has done, complete with contrived motivations and an anti-climatic ending.Direction: One word, incompetent. Far too laid back, with a lot of scenes lazily shot and staged in a clumsy and uninspired manner.Characters: Typical SyFy clichés, the bad guy, heroic officer, beautiful damsel-in-distress and so forth.Acting: Nothing great. Christina Cole is not great, but also not bad, at least she is more than a pretty face. Robert Picardo deserves better, but has some surprising subtlety in his performance. A decent actor David Hewlett may be, but can somebody give him a more interesting character to play, one that isn't too similar to everything else he's done, and one that enables him to do much less than moaning and whining.Overall, not the worst I've seen from SyFy, but it really ruined the potential of one of the better ideas they have ever had. 3/10 Bethany Cox

A made-for-SyFy movie -- everyone knows it is going to be bad, probably very, very bad. While Morlocks is not a "good" movie, it does unexpectedly rise above the typical movie garbage on SyFy; up to the level of marginally adequate.While the movie has the standard amount of bad or even meaningless science, overall it has the unexpected good sense to just not try to explain some things. Of course, all of the characters are dumbed-down to insure that no one does something too smart which might end the story half way through the movie. Also, the plot is completely transparent. Within the first fifteen minutes almost the entire story line is evident. Plot progression is strictly by-the-book, and almost completely lacking in imagination.Perhaps the most impressive thing about the movie is its ability to combine so many standard disaster movie conventions blatantly into one story. 1) The major disaster was unexpected but probably preventable, not fully or correctly understood by the experts, and not stoppable by simply pulling the plug, but rather requires exactly one special person to save things. 2) There is a stereotypical bad guy military commanding officer with some sort of ulterior motive, who steadily goes completely out of control, but who is never questioned by his subordinates. 3) There is a rogue or disillusioned scientist who wants nothing to do with the project, but comes back for personal reasons, usually an ex-spouse or ex-lover. 4) There is a heroic, almost superhuman, junior officer who although at times is a hard-ass, is naive regarding his command officer, but is extremely capable and personally quite brave. 5) There is a beautiful girl who must be rescued by one of the main male characters, possibly to the detriment of the mission to save the Earth/project/etc. 6) There is a beautiful auxiliary fighter who is jaded but able to kick butt at critical moments, usually saving secondary male characters. 7) The ending cannot allow things to be resolved, but rather there must be either a potential continuing problem or a tie-in to the original problem. 8) There are many more, but the point should be clear. The plot was written from a checklist of stereotypes and clichés.The movie has some good points which should be noted (considering its pedigree). 1) It is reasonably fast paced. There are no long waits for the plot developments. 2) There was nothing confusing about the plot. Everything is pretty much up front for the viewer to see. Even the hidden agenda is easily seen and understood from (too) early in the movie. 3) Unexpectedly the acting was generally quite decent. No one is going to win an award for this, but the actors appear to put effort into their characters. 4) The CGI is tolerable but by no means notable. By SyFy movie standards it is even good. 5) While there is violent death and some blood, it is not excessive and is consistent with the reasonable needs of the story (there was the potential for a lot of needless gore).The two best known cast members are David Hewlett (Stargate SG-1 and Stargate: Atlantis) as Radnor and Robert Picardo (Star Trek Voyager and Stargate: Atlantis) as Colonel Wichita. Hewlett brings his Dr. Rodney McKay character straight into Morlocks. Except for lacking McKay's humor, much of the movie could easily be mistaken for part of an episode of Stargate: Atlantis. Picardo brings his heavy / bad guy character seen in a number of movies and shows over the past few years. While at times he is reasonably convincing it such roles, it doesn't work as well here. The problem seems to be that his character so quickly goes off the deep end, to a point which would, in a non-contrived setting, result in his being relieved of command. That may stem from bad direction, poor general writing for his character, and certainly an obvious lack of knowledge by the writers about how the military and military research projects really work. Unfortunately, this was the least convincing of all the characters.Finally, the movie is worth watching at least once. Go in knowing that it is a great idea which is poorly executed, and always remember the horrible reputation of the production source (SyFy). If that is done, the viewer will get what is expected and it should be worth the time.