 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| _MOVIES | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
THE
TIME MACHINE review by Joseph B. Mauceri
REVIEW: One would hope that the great-grandson of H.G. Wells would have inspiration, insight and dedication as the director of a film based on his great-grandfather's novel. Least we forget, in 1960 director George Pal, limited by the state of special effects tackled Wells's novel and delivered a well-directed, thought-provoking film. If you take a moment to look at the credits, you'll notice that there are several major effect houses aiding the director in his quest. And there in lies the film's tragic flaw. The magic of a good science fiction film flows from its ability to transport us out of our contemporary environment to a place where we are uninhibited in our examination of the drama and the frailty of our human condition. "Good" science fiction, regardless of the medium, enables us to come away with a newfound appreciation of the human spirit and the truly limitless bounds of our ability to overcome insurmountable obstacles. Wells condenses his great-grandfather's tale into a 90-minute special effects extravaganza that is more concerned with the eye-candy then heart or art. Pivotal emotional sequences are devoid of the passion or intensity to transform the viewer from spectator to participant. The film rests heavily upon the shoulders of the talented Guy Pearce. Wells' lack of vision is evident in Pearce's flat performance. Further, there is no chemistry between among the cast. I was hard pressed to accept the climax because of the lack of a strong bond. Another stop along this ride has our hero dropping in with the "Uber-Morlock," played by Academy Award winner Jeremy Irons. With all of about 5-minutes of screen time, it becomes apparent that his presence is dictated more by the filmmakers' belief that every film needs a villain then what he actually brings to the role. Look, the guys dealing with the smoke and mirrors are at the top of their game. The film looks great, the special effects are breathtaking, but there is no substance supporting their efforts. The imbalance gives the impression that content was sacrificed to the science -- special effects. As a result, THE TIME MACHINE doesn't give audiences the time required to become involved with the characters or the tragedy. Granted, it is a period piece, and that can be distancing to a modern audience, but a skilled direct and talented cast can overcome it. Some of the things Iāve described at just the tip of the iceberg. There are other flagrant visual issues that make you hum! The filmmakers fail to strike a harmonic balance between implied science and special effects. For example, when Hartdegen (Pearce) places his hand out beyond the time field why isnāt his hand burned or aged? Yet that effect does figure heavily into the filmās climax. A larger question needs to be consider. In remaking THE TIME MACHINE, who did Simon Wells envision as his target audience? Having had the time to seriously ponder this serious mystery of the cinema, H.G. Wellsā great-grandson offers a version of THE TIME MACHINE that will easily be consumed by the contemporary Morlocks that inhabit the lightless corridors of our multiplexes. OFFICIAL
WEB SITE:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
SYNOPSIS:
Based on the novel by H.G. Wells, THE TIME MACHINE follows the journey
of scientist and inventor Alexander Hartdegen, a man possessed by
the possibilities of time travel and the determination to make it
a reality. His determination becomes obsession when a personal tragedy
drives him even harder as he hopes to change the past. Once completed,
a test drive of his machine results in an accident that hurtles
him 800,000 years into the future. There he discovers a disturbing
reality where mankind his fractionated into two classes, the hunter
and hunted.