The latest in a recent stream of "classic" remakes, "The Time Machine" hit theaters in early March. Based on the story by H. G. Wells (1866-1946), this is the second film iteration of the story that I am aware of. The first, 1960s "The Time Machine" starring Rod Taylor, will provide us with a little contrast later in this review. A third film, based more on an offshoot premise, is the 1979 movie, "Time After Time", which offers the premise that Wells wrote of a Time Machine that he himself had built, and which was used by Jack the Ripper to escape to San Francisco in the late 1970s. An interesting story and entertaining film, but not sufficiently related to bear discussion today.
The current release "The Time Machine" stars Guy Pearce as Dr. Alexander Hartdegen, our time traveling scientist. In the opening scenes, he is portrayed as brilliant to the point of distraction, forgetting everyday details as his mind works out the finer points of theory and mathematics. One slight problem is that his distracted behavior could be mistaken as poor emoting by the actor. Fortunately, as the story progresses, we are given a better taste of the actors abilities and range. Dr. David Philby, played by Mark Addy, is a friend and colleague of Dr. Hartdegen. Philbys part in the story is relatively minor, although necessary. More pivotal is the early love interest Emma, played by Sienna Guillory. Emmas untimely demise in the film is what drives the scientist to forge ahead with the time machine project, and provides the "Main Question" of the film. Ill try not to divulge too much, lest I spoil anything for you. Suffice it to say, as with the original book and the 1960 version, Dr. Hartdegen eventually begins travelling forward in time.
A side note here on the sets of this film. Whoever built the Time Machine prop for this film did an excellent job of creating something with the look and style of a Victorian era machine. Plenty of gleaming, polished brass, control levers, exposed gears and piping, and plush leather seat lend an authentic appearance to the prop that exceeds the previous film versions of the machine that I have seen. It genuinely looks like something built around the turn of the 19th - 20th Centuries. This version is more "animated" than the previous versions as well, and the prop displays plenty of motion as it is working. The exposed gears can be seen turning, linkages seen oscillating, and the whole image projects an aspect of functional concept. One complaint I might make is in the bicycles used in the 21st century city scene. Wells was a staunch advocate of bicycles, and believed that bikes would be a primary transportation device in the "Utopian" society. Of all the bicycles seen passing back and forth in the city scene, not one recumbent rolls past, though such a bike would likely be plentiful in a biking society. Not everyone is going to be comfortable on an "upright" bike. Just my beef, since I happen to ride a recumbent myself.
Back to our review. It is in this future city scene, just as in the 1960 version, where the world as we know it is changed. However, the two films handle this differently based on the contemporary "fears" of the generation. In 1960, the world sat uneasy as the United States and the Soviet Union escalated the "Cold War". Fears of nuclear holocaust were rampant, and many believed that a Nuclear war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. was inevitable. Therefore, in the 1960 film, society as we know it is ended in such an exchange. In the 2002 film, without saying too much, it is a situation of technology that precipitates the collapse of our world as our technological reach exceeds our grasp, so to speak. The circumstances are set to send our hero 800000 years into the future.
It is in this distant future that we meet Mara, played by Samantha Mumba. Again, following the basic premise of the book, we are presented with a world inhabited by two basic races. Maras race, the Eloy, are peaceful and content. They do not question much, accepting the world as it is. They are hunted by the Morlocks, people who survived the long past cataclysm by retreating underground and who now view the Eloy as a food source. Jeremy Irons plays the leader of the Morlocks (or "Uber-Morlock" as the film calls him), and offers the best "intellectual foil" for Pearces character in the movie, though sadly, the producers made this interaction a little too brief. The conflict and suspense could have been drawn out, and the audience would have been given more food for thought, had their exchange been expanded.
This is one of my recurring "beefs" with many modern films. It seems that we are being offered less thought provoking scenes in favor of more "flashy" scenes and special effects. At the end of the 1960 version, Philby notices that Alexander has returned to the world of the Eloy, and that 3 books are missing from the shelves. Nobody is sure which three books, and the audience is left with the question, "What books would you take?". This is the kind of question that can fuel discussions for hours on end, and it was a nice touch to conclude on. We are not offered such pensive moments in the current film version, although aspects of social commentary remain in the story.
All in all, though, the current version is an enjoyable film, presenting an interesting take on the 107 year old story. The works of H. G. Wells have inspired many films, and will continue to do so for years to come, including an upcoming remake of "War of the Worlds", expected out next year (see the info on line at ).