Archives for March 2002

March 13, 2002

Ok, I'm back from being stuck face down in an Oregon snow drift.

Refreshing it was too.

Back in the real world though, my computer is still giving me grief. The Blue Screen of Death is a frequent visitor, and after spending some time in online forums, trying to get to the bottom of the "NMI: Parity Check / Memory Parity Error" and pow-wowing with some fellow error-sufferers, I resolved that it was a bug with (what else) Windows XP.

I almost regret now having abandoned my beautiful Win2k. But going back - nahhh. Just simply don't have the time to roll back the clock like that.

Speaking of rolling back the clock though - after months of being tantalized by stunning trailers, I finally got to see "The Time Machine" last Saturday. Now, having seen the 1960 version, I was pretty excited about the possibilites new advances in movie technology could bring to this story, making time travel truly come alive to the passive viewer. In the end though, the only truth I discovered was: nothing beats a good story.

(Warning: Plot and ending discussed)
The first half hour of the movie is utterly engaging, with Guy Pearce playing rather convincingly the scattered scientist-in-love Alexander Hartdegen (for a look at what Guy really can do, go and rent "Memento" and "Ravenous"), and his financee manages to make us actually care for her character in the very few scenes she appears. The one disturbing thing (that really should have tipped me off about how the rest of the movie was going to play out) is the fact that the story is set in New York, and not in London as H.G. Wells' tale dictates.

For any half-way intelligent human being, trying to follow the story line rather than letting himself being dazzled to a stupor by the special effects, there soon comes a point though when things start going seriously wrong. Wait a minute, you say: 80,000 years in the future, and people still look *exactly* like they do today? Wearing mascara and all? Not likely. And they are still being taught *English* as kids, but aren't using the language later in life? Why? What's the point? (Of course we all know, that the movie people built that in to facilitate the main characters from the different times being able to communicate - but the reason really falls awfully flat.)

Then of course, there is the issue of where all the old people went. If they were really all hunted down and eaten by the creatures living under the earth (which are lame and nothing we haven't seen before), then why are all of a sudden the young ones being hunted too? The tribe just doesn't seem big enough to sustain or defend itself against these powerful creatures. And living in those precariously perched half-baskets, glued to a steep canyon wall, doesn't seem very safe either. The monsters seem suffiently resourceful too that they could have just plucked those baskets right off the walls - if they really wanted to.

The short appearance of Jeremy Irons as all-controlling, all-knowing ueber-monster would have been a ray of light acting-wise, had it not been for the terrible white make-up job. I ask: These days, Hollywood artists can visualize and believably bring to the screen the earth morphing through thousands of years in mere seconds - but they can't put make-up on an actor that doesn't look caked and old?

So we are left puzzling about these things while we hold on to our seats for 45 minutes of wild monster chases through forests and dark tunnels, with camerawork making us feel like we're on a Disneyland thrill ride rather than in the midst of a time travel story. Any kind of depth, emotion, or dimension the tale should have had, has all but vanished by now.

And then the movie ends. Alexander destroys the creatures by blowing up his time machine. Gee, how heroic. But that's it? What the hell? Whatever happened to his quest? The weak innuendo of a romance with the pretty future girl just doesn't seem to be able to fully replace the fervor and dedication with which he pursued his lost true love - driving him to build the time machine in the first place.

Ok, so maybe I'm too demanding. But for a whopping $9.25 (at the Metreon in San Francisco), I expect more than just a bunch of (admittedly) spectacular special effects. There should at least be a story line that makes sense. Crucial parts of the tale should be fully explained, not just hinted at.

As a movie buff, I'm saddened by the premise that that's what we can expect from movie entertainment in the future.

I guess it's time to upgrade that Netflix subscription and bury myself in the couch, endlessly watching digitally remastered versions of Hitchcock classics on DVD. Sigh.