Find free sources for our audience.

Trailer Synopsis Cast Keywords

Ferocious humanoid creatures from the future come back to the present to devour humans.

David Hewlett as  Radnor
Robert Picardo as  Colonel Wichita
Hamish Clark as  Patterson
Christina Cole as  Angela
Marem Hassler as  Vera Cortez
Iain McKee as  Pip Squeak
Jesse Steele as  Scientist
Shelly Varod as  Perez
Owen Davis as  Scared Soldier

Reviews

wes-connors
2011/09/25

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

... more
trashgang
2011/09/26

If I say this is a SyFy flicks then geeks immediately should know that it will be trash. But it's funny that all people who hates SyFy flicks still watch their new ones again and again. The story is mostly okay and when it started I thought, hell yeah, this is going to be a really bloody flick. But after the opening credits the budget was gone I guess and they used some cheap CGI effects to create the 'morlocks'. The stupidest thing is the fact that most of the blood was also CGI. The acting was rather okay but I kept watching it just to see how bad the CGI was. When will SyFy finally spend some money on good CGI? I wasn't involved with the characters at all, do I need to say more? For me no Mor(e)locks.

... more
HeadMMoid
2011/09/27

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.

... more
Flowmaster
2011/09/28

Half way thru this thing(I won't even call it a movie)I felt like setting my head on fire and putting it out with a fire axe. Watch this thing at your own peril. Seriously, This thing is just another piece of junk churned out by Syfy. I was hoping that David Hewlett and Robert Picardo would go on to do some better things than this, as I have enjoyed their characters on several series. They must be wanting to buy a new boat or put a new pool in their backyard. As this thing probably took a weekend to shoot, so it was a quick paycheck for them. We need to come up with a generic review we can just cut and paste on all these Syfy movies. That way we wouldn't waste time typing out what everybody already knows.

... more
Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream thousands of hit movies and TV shows