Review: Somewhere in Time

Somewhere in Time

Jane Seymore, Christopher Reeve

Here’s a slightly dated review for a slightly dated movie....

In my opinion, Somewhere in Time provides one of the more unlikely couplings of love interests. It ranks up there with Emma Thompson and Hugh Grant in Sense and Sensibility. But I will let you make your own decision. If you like the hairstyles of the 1980’s, this is a great film. Not the fake retro stuff like in The Wedding Singer, but genuine, since it was actually filmed in the 80’s.

Christopher Reeve is a playwright with some degree of success. After the debut of one of his plays, a handsome old woman tucks something in his hand and says, “Come back to me.” 

Ten years later (and an hour into the movie), he finds a way to Jane Seymour. Through self hypnosis and dressing the part, he convinces himself he is in 1912. He meets the lovely actress, woos her and gets beaten up over her. Christopher Plummer, her mysterious Svengali, guardian and mentor keeps looming and interfering in their relationship. No, he doesn’t break into “Eidelweiss.”

The couple (Reeve and Seymour) do have extramarital sex, which is not graphic. In the morning, a tragic twist of fate and carelessness awaits them. 

I first saw this movie in my college years when I was free to adore Christopher Reeve’s face. [Wow, that was back when we used the term "hunk" rather than "hottie." His face is about all you get during the first hour of the movie. When I was 18, it suited me just fine. Now that I’m married and certainly not 18, I found the plot thin.] Perhaps my second viewing of Somewhere in Time detracted from the final irony.

Somewhere in Time is “Lifetime” channel fare.  Seymour and Reeve lacked a certain necessary electricity. Perhaps the director intentionally established the tone, going for relationship rather than spark. Plummer reminds me of Liam Neeson in Batman Begins, his power somehow not exactly believable.

I expect Somewhere in Time will one day be a remake, maybe with Tobey Maguire, but in the remake, they’ll show his pectorals (why the original filmmaker didn’t play up Superman’s torso still puzzles me), and they’ll team him up with, oh, Lindsay Lohan in her blond phase. Or could there be some other such unlikely match?

CFI: 

If it were possible, I’d give it a negative number.

Date movie potential: 

Well, if you’re a guy on a date with a thirty or forty something woman, it might work. You, however, might fall asleep. I suggest you go for a Jane Austen adaptation. The characterization and dialogue is much better, even if Thompson and Grant don’t convince you.

$?

Rainy afternoon or bad cold fare, a buck or two.

Review: National Treasure

I wrote this review before seeing my first Mythbusters, so it really was the first time I saw a TASER.

National Treasure

PG for action violence and old skeletons. Possibly one swear word.

You’ve heard the premise: Ben Gates (Nicolas Cage) must steal the Declaration of Independence so it doesn’t get stolen. Supposedly on the back is a map which will lead to an unimaginable treasure.

Had Disney decided to go with an R rating, Treasure would have proved more compelling, but the fun would have shrunken immensely, so I give kudos to Disney. (Did I really say that?)

I actually enjoyed Treasure more in the second viewing. Justin Bartha performs Riley to perfection. He is the kid, the comic relief, the geek, the technician. And his displays of emotion are indeed winsome.

Boromir, I mean Sean Bean, is the bad guy: same accent, slightly cleaner hair. If you ever wondered what TASERs look like, you get to see them in action. I’ve never really seen thugs with Scottish accents. Sorta like British hip hop: it’s out there but it can catch you by surprise.

The masonic stuff proves hokey, more the vehicle for the story than promoting the religion. Even so, it might draw some interested parties into studying freemasonry further. This is a good point for discussion. Also, there are trace inaccuracies such as what they call a replica of Solomon’s temple. See if you can find it.

There is a lot of “cool” in this movie, TASER use, invisible ink, optics, fingerprint transferral and biometrics that don’t involve cutting off or gouging out body parts. (A word to the wise: NEVER EVER let them use your retinal scan as a form of identification. NEVER EVER.)

National Treasure is fun, a buddy/sidekick and guy-gets-the-girl-after-multitudinous-perilous-situations kind of movie. It is fairly safe for teens to watch without causing hormonal overdrive.

CFI: 8.

Questions for Discussion:

What is freemasonry? 

How important, really, is a piece of paper?

Talk about living a passionate life, about goals and what price one is willing to pay to achieve one’s dreams.

How far should loyalty between friends go? When is it okay to bail out?

Talk about betrayal and money.

Review: The Mark of Zorro

The Mark of Zorro

with Tyrone Power, Basil Rathbone.

black and white, Fox.

Compared to today’s media, The Mark of Zorro provides slow moving and mild fare, having only a few scenes with [mostly] sanitized violence: some cuts and two stabbings. TMOZ does provide some of the “witty repartee” you’d expect in a good swashbuckler.

The characters glide through this, clearly having fun. It wasn’t Oscar fare then, nor is it now. It has one exciting swordfight between Power and Rathbone.

Discussion topics:

Deception

Theft

Civil disobedience

Catholic culture then and now

Does “the end justify the means”?

Should men be allowed to wear tights with flowers down the sides?

CFI: 1.

I’m not even sure why. But when I looked down, there was one fingernail gone, and a picked cuticle. Ouch. It must have been all Don Diego’s foppish hanky flopping. Scary stuff.

What would I pay to see this again?

If I could go with someone who would laugh along with me, a couple bucks. I’d rent it again in a couple years when my son is older. Every swashbuckling fan should see it at least once.

Review: Island at the Top of the World

For the un-initiated, my CFI (chewed fingernail index) is how I rate suspense. I really should copyright that.

Island at the Top of the World

Disney.

Donald Sinden plays Sir Anthony Ross, a businessman in search of his lost son, Donald Ross. He has disappeared while seeking the fabled Island at the Top of the World where all whales go to die. Sir Anthony persuades an American archaeologist, Ivarsson, (David Hamilton, who looks extremely like Chuck Tyler from All My Children: “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV”) to join him. They hire a French captain to carry them in his lighter-than-air craft across the arctic. We meet Umiak the Fearless, an Inuit, whom Ross betrays into joining their expedition. We also meet a wavy haired platinum blonde... miniature poodle.

We eventually meet a whole Nordic civilization with their own platinum blonde, this one with two legs. Except for the missing horses, you would think you had met the riders of Rohan. They are a superstitious and fearful people, craving peace but goaded on by Goda, a wild eyed religious zealot. (This dates back to when Disney pictures still gave lip service to respecting Christianity. The crazed one is a polytheist!)

In the 21st century, we have been spoiled by computer graphic animation. What we see in IATTOTW is what may have been cutting edge special effects from 40 or 50 years ago. To Disney’s credit, there is footage of arctic wildlife, a dizzying aerobatic display from an understated hero, lovely blue ice caves and a delightfully cheesy killer whale attack. And since I was a kid, I have loved volcano scenes. I don’t care how they’re spliced; they’re just plain coooool.

IATTOTW makes Disney history with one notable flaw. Donald Sinden is Disney’s first British character that is neither quaint, amusing nor likable. (James Mason, where are you?) Everything Sir Anthony says shows he feels the universe is all about him. Even his search for his son comes off as selfish. His apologies to the captain are egocentric regrets and ask no forgiveness. He knows it all, is reckless and impulsive. With that mouth, how he succeeded in business is unclear.

Would I pay money to see this movie again? Well, if it were on television, I might turn it on while I fold laundry. Or maybe I would just play my Point of Know Return CD.

Oh, I did forget one other plus. The old Disney videos lack that half hour of commercials in the beginning. That’s worth a buck or two to rent!

CFI: 2.

Discussion points:

Notice how attractive a modestly dressed young lady can be!

Power plays and control issues

Superstitions

Ancient (Nordic) religions

Recognizing the Kingdom of Self in others and in yourself

What defines heroism?

Loyalty and faithfulness to one’s word