|
| . |
|
The Time Machine 2002 |
Review by Jonathan Cornwell |
Directed by Simon Wells
PG-13, 95 min. (mature themes, violence) |
 |
Starring: Guy Pearce, Samantha Mumba, Sienna Guillory, Jeremy Irons, Phyllida Law, Mark Addy, Orlando Jones, Omero Mumba
Producers: Walter F. Parkes, David Valdes
Screenplay: John Logan (based on H.G. Wells' novel)
Cinematography: Donald McAlpine
Distributor: Dreamworks SKG
Released: 3.08.02 (Wide) |
Rating:
  (out of ) |
Somewhere H.G. Wells must be cringing. He would probably be aghast at what has happened to his story, considering
what The Time Machine has done with his vision of the future. His message of warning of the dangers of the industrial
revolution has somehow been lost in both versions of the story to hit the big screen. First, in the 1960 version, which
by the way is far superior to what we have on display here, the warning was about the nuclear arms race. In this 2002
edition, director Simon Wells (who is related to H.G.) has replaced any meaningful message with dazzling special effects
and not much else. In fact, it will have more than one person in the audience asking what the film was about in the first place.
The Time Machine is maybe the perfect example of what current Hollywood has done to modern classics - deluge
the audience with mesmerizing special effects and overblown action scenes while jettisoning any real story or message
that makes a film worth sitting through.
There are so many problems with this version of Wells' classic that it's hard to know where to begin. In short, it's a mess.
It probably didn't help matters when Simon Wells succumbed to mental exhaustion and had to be replaced as director
by Gore Verbinski with 18 days left of shooting. After seeing the results, it's quite understandable why Wells' breakdown
occurred - he knew the picture was headed for a train wreck and couldn't take the strain of contemplating what had become
of his great-grandfather's work. The screenplay, by John Logan, is such an incoherent and logically-challenged disaster,
that it's hard to imagine even a great director making sense of it. Before Dreamworks green-lighted such a project they
should have demanded a rewrite. What we're left with spirals into a short, laughable conclusion that simply doesn't make
any sense at all.
In this version, Alexander Hartdegen (Guy Pearce), a brilliant professor at Columbia University in late 19th century
New York, is haunted by the idea that he will never again see the love of his life, Emma (Sienna Guillory). She is killed
in a robbery attempt following Alexander's marraige proposal, and he is determined to put his genius to good use - he
will invent a time machine to change the past. Unfortunately, although he succeeds in time travel, he learns that no matter
how many times he tries to save her, she will invariably be killed in one way or another. He decides that the answer to
his question (why he can't change the past) lies in the future. After a quick stop in 2037, where he sees the moon coming
apart, he barely escapes the disaster and sits unconscious while his machine takes him 800,000 years into the future.
Once awake, he finds himself in the care of an Eloi, Mara (Samantha Mumba), and soon learns of man's evolution - one
civilization that lives above ground (the Eloi), and one that lives beneath it (the Morlocks). Horrified at nature's answer
to man's mistakes, Alexander is determined to put things right by saving the simple Eloi from the hands of the violent,
man-eating Morlocks, led by a pale-skinned Jeremy Irons.
If a story of this magnitude is to be done justice, a much longer running length is required. It's simply impossible to build
characters, establish relationships, and resolve centuries of natural selection in a mere 90 minutes. This film needed at
least twice that amount of time to be effective. At an estimated budget of over $80 million, surely they could have
added a little more background and depth to what is taking place on the screen. The first 30 minutes, although flawed,
is somewhat effective. The last 30 minutes is a shambles of plotting, pacing, and climactic finale. What were they thinking?
The film's clumsy handlling of its only meaningful question, "Why can't I change the past?", is unforgivable in light of the
fact that it has nothing else to represent as its reason for existing. With a little more time, maybe some of the gigantic
holes in the script could be lessened.
The only performance worth mentioning is Irons' portrayal of a telepathic Morlock, seemingly evolved from years of
inbreeding to produce a new race of humanoids. His presence is somewhat comical, although he realizes that such a
character can't be taken seriously and accordingly plays it so. His above the fray attitude clashes with Pearce's over-serious,
pondering scientist in search of answers that don't exist. Pearce, who's last effort, Memento, was a career performance
for a talented actor, has turned in a lackluster turn as Alexander. He's become more of a sidekick to the ever-present
avalanche of special effects trickery that surrounds him. Finally, Mumba's Mara is likable but not very smart.
Aside from the obvious plotholes, there are serious problems with time travel inconsistencies as presented in the film.
Even the slightest changes in the past would invariably affect outcomes in the future, and the film easily dismisses this
concept. There are many other problems here, but maybe one could treat the film as a game, in that it would be fun to
count the many paradoxes inherent in such a story. Despite all of its shortcomings, The Time Machine still has an
opportunity to leave the viewer with a plausible conclusion, but, like the rest of the film, it conveniently wraps up a
convoluted story with yet another mistake. If such a powerful bomb explodes underground, would it really have no
real affect on the Eloi's future, or more importantly, on the immediate surface? Decidedly dumb, The Time Machine
deserves to be incinerated in a way that even H.G. Wells himself would appreciate.
© 2002 Jonathan Cornwell
|
|
 |
 | Masterpiece - Film perfection |
| Excellent - A Must See |
| Good - Highly Recommended |
| Fair - Worth seeing |
| Average - Viewable, but not recommended |
| Below average - View at own risk |
| Poor - Avoid at all costs |
| Very poor - An embarassment to the film industry |
| Zero | Awful - One of the worst films ever made |
© 2000 - present ReelCriticReviews
All movie pictures are registered trademarks and/or copyrights of their respective holders
Their use on this site is for informational purposes only and does not imply ownership
|
