Movie Review: The Time Machine

The Time Machine (2002) 

Directed by Simon Wells

Written by John Logan 

Starring Guy Pearce, Jeremy Irons, Samantha Mumba, Mark Addy, Orlando Jones, Doug Jones

Release Date March 8th, 2002

Published March 7th, 2002 

I have never read the classic story of The Time Machine by HG Wells but the story is so iconic and the idea of time travel so enticing I feel like I've read it. Though now after having seen this film version of The Time Machine I'm glad I never picked up the book.

For the uninitiated The Time Machine is the story of a doofus scientist Alexander Hartdegan, played by Guy Pearce, who after his fiancée is murdered becomes obsessed with going back in time and changing what happened saving her life. Hartdegan accomplishes time travel but finds himself unable to alter the past, for some reason no matter how he changes things his fiancée dies anyway. These early scenes are somewhat effective and setup an intriguing question. Why can't Hartdegan alter the past? Hartdegan, confounded by his inability to change the past, journeys to the future to answer his question.

His travels take him over 800,000 years into a future where there are now two species of human, the above ground and peaceful Eloi and the below ground terrorists, the Morlocks. Singer Samantha Mumba plays Alexander's perfunctory Eloi love interest and Jeremy Irons, chewing any scenery left over from his performance in Dungeon's and Dragons, is the evil Morlock overlord. Irons' character provides Alexander with the answer to why he can't change the past, an answer so unsatisfying I wanted to get up and leave. All of the scenes in this future world are boring illustrations of the missed opportunity The Time Machine truly is. Instead of tackling time travel from an intellectual, moral, or spiritual angle we are given a dull adventure plot that goes nowhere fast.

The film's main problem is it's perspective. I understand that since Alexander is from 1895 he doesn't have much of an idea of what to do with his invention other than to change his past, but what a squandered opportunity. The chance to see history in the making and all he can think of is himself, which doesn't make for a very likable character. It doesn't help that Pearce, plays Hartdegan as perpetually waking from a deep sleep always squinting and confused. Here is the guy who invented this time machine yet he still has no idea what it is he's doing with it.

And is it me or has Jeremy Irons completely slipped into self-parody? I can't watch him without laughing and I'm sure that is not what he is supposed to be going for.

The Time Machine is yet another big budget mess, all bells and whistles and no brain. Now that I think of it that is just typical Hollywood.

Movie Review Robin Hood (2010)

Robin Hood (2010) 

Directed by Sir Ridley Scott 

Written by Brian Helgeland 

Starring Russell Crowe, Danny Huston, Scott Grimes, Cate Blanchett, Oscar Isaac, Mark Addy 

Release Date May 14th, 2010 

Published May 13th, 2010 

Russell Crowe is a superstar and despite his personality defects, prickly interviews and phone throwing incidents, Crowe's films have always showcased his natural charisma. As was said of classic male movie stars of the past 'Men want to be him, Women want to be with him.' That has been the essence of Russell Crowe.

Lately however, Crowe has chafed against this persona and his ache to pursue a different reputation led to a terrific performance as a roguish and paunchy reporter in “State of Play” and now a buffed up action hero “Robin Hood.” While the movie “Robin Hood” rewrites the English legend, Crowe rewrites his own history essaying Robin as a stoic, charmless action hero that could as easily been played by Vin Diesel.

As King Richard (Danny Huston) wages war in France following a trip to Palestine and Israel in the Crusades, Robin Longstride is one of the King's Archers for hire. No longer entirely loyal to the crown following a horrific massacre of Muslims, Robin Longstride is soon to leave and return to England.

Joining Robin are his long time friends and fellow Archers Will Scarlett (Scott Grimes) and Alan A'Dayle (Alan Doyle) and his onetime antagonist turned loyal friend Little John (Kevin Durand, in a rare good guy role). The way back to England leads to the discovery of a French ambush on English Knights. King Richard is dead and his crown is to be returned to England along with an ancient sword that belongs to Sir Robert Locksley (Douglas Hodge).

Robin and his merry men will return to England dressed as knights, return the crown and reap a reward, or so they had hoped. Winding up in Nottingham to return the sword, Robin meets Lady Marion (Cate Blanchett), Locksley's wife and Sir William Locksley (Max Von Sydow) who engages Longstride in a deal, Robin will take on the role of his son in order to maintain the lands after his death; he will also become husband to Lady Marion.

Meanwhile, as the craven Prince John becomes King John, the French plot an invasion to take advantage of the Royal chaos. Stoking the fires is King John's best friend Godfrey (Mark Strong) who has joined with the French and is leading the invasion. Needless to say, Robin, his merry men, and the people of Nottingham get caught in the midst of all of this intrigue and many a sword is swung and arrow flown.

Directed by the brilliant Sir Ridley Scott, “Robin Hood” treads very similar ground to his Oscar winning epic “Gladiator” and his massive flop, the crusades epic “Kingdom of Heaven.” Scott has a great deal of love for the ancient world, warrior codes and the brotherhood of war. He evokes the age exceptionally well with detailed landscapes and costumes, well used CGI and some terrific cinematography.

Where “Kingdom of Heaven” failed is in the same way “Robin Hood” comes up short; both films swamp the viewer with the ugliness and depravity of the ancient world and leave little for people to enjoy beyond the carnage. Characters suffer because Scott's attention to period detail apparently means depicting men with courage minus charisma and charm.

While Cate Blanchett is allowed to look radiant even while covered in mud, Russell Crowe plays Robin subdued, withdrawn and modestly tortured. His bravery is evident in battle and you can see why his men are loyal to him but he comes up short in the aspects of personality that make him a compelling movie character.

Mirthless, constipated and withdrawn, the Crowe that was so captivating in “Gladiator” and so charming in “State of Play'' is caked in mud and blood and is basically part of the scenery in “Robin Hood'' until the battle scenes awaken his warrior side. The battle stuff is very good, almost the equal of “Gladiator,” but “Robin Hood '' is over 2 hours and 20 minutes long and the battle scenes are merely a third of that run time.

“Robin Hood '' has moments that are as amusing as any classic action epic but the quiet moments are so quiet that lethargy sets in and the audience begins to withdraw nearly as much as Mr. Crowe does. The battle returns the Russell Crowe we’ve come to enjoy then he recedes and we wonder where is the star, where is the spirited rebel. Is Russell Crowe so desperate to create a new persona that he can no longer find joy in his work

If he can’t enjoy it, how can we enjoy it?

Movie Review: The Order

The Order (2003) 

Directed by Brian Helgeland 

Written by Brian Helgeland 

Starring Heath Ledger, Shannyn Sossomon, Mark Addy, Benno Furman, Peter Weller

Release Date September 5th, 2003 

Published September 4th, 2003 

It's not Heath Ledger's fault

It's not his fault that even before he finished what was to be his breakout role as a lead actor in A Knight's Tale, that Hollywood's marketing machine was on full blast anointing him the heir apparent to Mel Gibson. It wasn't Ledger's fault that seemingly out of nowhere Hollywood had decided that audiences loved Heath Ledger. He hadn't had a top-line-starring role yet and already he was on every magazine cover and his name was being mentioned in company with box office heavyweights like Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise.

A Knight's Tale went on to gross over $100 million dollars but no actor could live up to that hype and his next film, the stolid but beautiful looking Four Feathers, bombed miserably. Even before that failure Ledger had another film albatross around his neck called The Order, a film made as a favor to Director Brian Helgeland soon after completing A Knight's Tale.

In The Order, Ledger plays Father Alex Bernier, a New York priest for a strange and largely ignored Catholic sect. Father Alex's mentor back in the holy city of Rome has been killed and the Catholic hierarchy wants Father Alex to investigate the circumstances. The death is seemingly a suicide but on closer inspection, Alex begins to suspect murder.

With the help of a fellow priest played by Mark Addy, and an oddball romantic interest played by Shannyn Sossamon, Father Bernier slowly uncovers a conspiracy within the church that could result in a new pope. The conspiracy involves a supernatural being known as the Sin Eater (Benno Furmann), a deity who can send anyone to heaven with a clean slate of sin. Through ritual, the Sin Eater takes in the evil committed by men of power allowing them a free pass into heaven. It is the Sin Eater who killed Alex's mentor and Alex wants revenge. What the Sin Eater wants is Alex.

Here is the odd thing about the Sin Eater, though he is the bad guy, the things he does actually don't seem that bad. He seems to serve a purpose that some might call admirable. He absolves the sins of people who are near death and are uncertain about their chances to get into heaven. Whether he can get them there or not is unimportant, it just seems that the comfort he provides to the dying is something to be admired.

Peter Weller shows up in The Order in a vaguely sinister role as the possible new pope, a badly underwritten role that makes little sense. But then, not much of The Order makes sense. As written by Director Brian Helgeland, it's a story that has an interesting religious hook but doesn't know what to do with it. It doesn't help that the dialogue is stiflingly dull with both Ledger and Sossoman delivering their lines in sullen monotones that sound as if they were rehearsing their lines rather than actually performing them. 

Disdain for the church is fair, in my eyes, considering the recent scandals and painting the church as harboring the ultimate evils is a clever allegory to use in a movie plot. Unfortunately The Order isn't interested in symbolism. The Order is a straight genre suspense flick with supernatural overtones and has no other aspiration. It's a shame because religious-themed mysteries are an undeserved dramatic context. With all the vagaries of religious text, the mystery and suspense that can be found in religion is endless.

This film however is only interested in it's minor twists and jolts, none of which rise to the genre of horror which some have ascribed it to. There are neither enough blood nor scares for The Order to be called a horror film. As I stated at the front, I don't think that the path of Heath Ledger's career is his fault. There is a streak of independence in Heath Ledger that seems to chafe at the attention he receives for his looks. It's the same look that Johnny Depp had early in his career as he fought off matinee idol pigeonholing. Whether Ledger has the same nose for smart material as Depp has developed, is something he has yet have to prove.