Directed by Richard Donner
Starring Paul Walker, Frances O'Connor, Gerard Butler
Yes, it's been a while. Yes, I've got 3 movies to write reviews for. Yes I've been sitting on the next two I need to watch for a while now. You try having a kid and keep up with your Netflix queue... I'd like to see it.
Well maybe not... I'd really rather see you spend some quality time with your kid.
Funny that I should mention Jurassic Park and Hollywood's treatment of technobabble in movies in my review of Primer...
I've long been a fan of Michael Crichton's writing (well, except for Congo) and Hollywood has smiled favorably on him with hits on both the big and small screens (he's one of the creators of "ER" in case you didn't know). Unfortunately, Hollywood has a way of completely sucking the life out of most of his stories, mostly by removing the science (or quasi-science) that is such an integral part of the story.
Yes, there are times - like in Jurassic Park where a few chapters on Genetics and Chaos Theory are reduced to a few lines and a 30-second "Mr. DNA" cartoon - where the science isn't really all that important and it's really the spectacle of what's made possibly BY that science that's on display. This works if you're talking Dinosaurs... not so much for time travel. If they ever turn his novel "Prey" - about sentient nanomachines that evolve the ability to not only combine to replicate the appearance of humans, but also weave a skin around actual humans to mimic them while simultaneously feeding off of them - into a movie, it will probably do well as a horror/shocker type film and the science will be secondary, but when you're talking about Time Travel... that's the gimmick... and if you're not going to get into the science, then why make a movie at all.
Hollywood also likes to sugarcoat Crichton's darker moments when they convert to film. John Hammond, the billionaire owner of Jurassic Park, gets eaten by Procompsognathus (Compys) in the book, but in the movie he lives and we don't get to meet this little killer dino until the second film. In the Timeline book, the owner of the company that made the Time Machine is more sinister and what happens to him at the end is also darker. And don't get me started on how they RUINED the ominously dark ending of Sphere.
Watching this movie all I could see was the guy from The Fast and The Furious trying too hard to win the affection of the girl from Bedazzled (no, not Liz Hurley... the other gal, the one that Brendan Frasier sold his soul for which introduced him to Liz Hurley... where do I sign?...) Their chemistry is awkward and they also just felt out of place in the movie.
It was like when you hear that bit of trivia about other actors that were considered for a famous part (Christopher Walken as Han Solo anyone?) and wonder how oddly different the entire movie would have been... well, in this case, in some alternate reality, there's this kick ass movie called Timeline and can you believe that they were originally planning to cast Paul Walker and Frances O'Connor? How oddly different would that have been? Oh, right.
That, and after seeing "300" I just get disappointed when I see Gerard Butler not shouting all his lines.
"THIS ... IS ... THE PAST!!!"
Amazingly, there really isn't much in the way of effects here, which is quite an accomplishment. Most of the Time Machine effects are achieved by mirrors and camera angles and having the actors fall or drop down followed by underwater shots for maximum disorientation. Nothing quite as cheesy as Star Trek IV though. The rest of the movie takes place in 12th century France, so there's not much in the way of effects that's necessary, except for some cool flaming trebuchets during a battle sequence.
Atmosphere and Immersive Detail
It's hard not to see that you're watching a period piece, though there are a few things that irked me. The budget of the film had to have been hurting based on the minimal special effects, but especially the fact that several scenes where the characters are escaping from hostile forces all seemingly take place from different angles of the same few houses while trying to look as if there was a small town outside the castle walls. I can only imagine what it must have looked like to anyone watching on set without the benefit of editing.
Otherwise, the English are savagely barbaric and the French are aristocratically barbaric, which gels with the stereotype from Braveheart and so many other period movies, so why not run with it.
Not the best "Crichton" movie, but not the worst (Congo's still a loser in both book and movie form as far as I'm concerned). I'll need to read the book-version of Timeline to decide how it plays out as an adaptation, though various online summaries that I've seen would seem to indicate that the movie's pretty close to the book plot-wise. Ultimately, I liked the film because it connected all the dots well with a relatively satisfying ending and because they weren't afraid to kill characters you'd become invested in, making it more uncertain who would really make it to the end of the film. But it's not going to change your life or send you on a non-stop roller coaster of action and adventure. If you're a Sci-fi or Crichton fan, I'd suggesting renting it just to be a completist. Otherwise, you can safely skip this one without wondering "what if..." for the rest of your life.
Unless you've got a thing for Medieval re-enactment...