Skip to main content

You're kidding! I can go anywhere in time and you bring me back to the worst party of all time.

About Time
(2013)

The usual life affirming, romance-driven, slop from Richard Curtis, his formula long-since honed to a blunt edge. He’s indicated he was inspired backwards, so to speak, to make a movie involving time travel by his wish to express the sentiment that the best possible day would be a day like any other, with your loved ones, and lived as if it is your final day. You know, sodden mush filtered through a treacly upper-middle class dial-a-script.  There isn’t an ounce of originality here, once he’s magpied the likes of Groundhog Day and The Time Traveler’s Wife. And not even very well! I’m not necessarily going to rip apart a picture’s internal logic if it satisfies on other levels (emotionally, for example – this doesn’t) but Curtis has devised a scenario that makes no sense.


So much so that the a significant portion of the picture’s Wikipedia page is devoted to pointing out how Curtis abandons his slipshod rules of time-travel just as soon as it’s convenient (or, as Mark Kermode witheringly comments, “whenever the prospect of an extra hug rears its head”). So, Dad (Bill Nighy) informs junior Tim (Domhall Gleeson) of his ability on turning 21. Arbitrarily, or as a result of abject sexism, only the men in the family are able to do this (except when Curtis wants to break his rule). They can’t go visit the future (unless one classes an alternate present one has no experience of but which one suddenly remembers entirely as the future, that is), and they can’t go back before they were born. That rule isn’t broken, but Tim seems curiously uninterested in travels prior to the point he is first informed of this (‘cos it’s About Love, see). That, and presumably Big wasn’t a big influence on Curtis (one presumes Tim’s adult consciousness would be trapped in his child self’s body, but there’s only one point in the finished move where we’d get to ask this and it’s played out as a hazy halcyon sunset).


Curtis, as noted, realised that if you go forward to a different future you need to remember that memories of the future you haven’t experienced (although you don’t lose the no longer existing ones), something the end of Back to the Future didn’t think about (unless Zemeckis and Gale were playing with multiple parallel Martys, but unfortunately the trilogy isn’t nearly that clever). But for similar reasons as Robert Zemeckis, this director-writer then chooses to completely ignore his rule when he needs to his protagonist to be surprised by something of which he should be fully aware.  So too, the sudden inclusion of a rule that if you go back in time before your child is born the infinite variables (well, the number of different potential sperm) will result in a different child is as close as Curtis gets to embracing The Butterfly Effect. Which he promptly discards with no adverse consequences when he wants to seep schmaltz over the screen.


Of his various narrative nonsenses, the one that threw me the most was the mode of time travel itself. Simple and effective, one might think; Tim goes into a cupboard, or dark place, closes his eyes, grips his fists and thinks of a moment he wants to revisit. And lo, he is transported there in place of his other self currently there. When he’s finished, he returns to his dark space and comes back to the present. Except that… If he arrives in the past, in a cupboard, his earlier self would have to be in that cupboard waiting. Or wink out of whatever (possibly public) place he happened to be at the time. And, when Tim leaves again, what remains of his consciousness of the events in the mind of his self he engineered? Does Tim retain the awareness of his future self, or just go on as if nothing ever happened? I have no idea. Curtis is far too lazy to bother with any of this (he claims he followed his rules rigorously, so I can only assume he’s utterly shit at board games).


He’s tackled time travel before, of course, for motives both of broad comedy (Blackadder Back and Forth) and an attempt to touch on themes of personal validation and artistic merit (quite effectively, in Doctor Who’s Vincent and the Doctor; for all the glibness of the current (nu-) series, and the dire straits in which it currently languishes, the season he wrote for is easily its peak). Here, however, it’s a pointless device; he’d have been better off using an actual magic wand that causes less logical frictions (how about Adam Sandler’s crazy remote control?) Either that, or made the effort to fashion something, if not watertight, then sea-worthy. Harold Ramis managed it with Groundhog Day. That’s why it’s a classic (that and Bill Murray; Andie McDowell not so much). It uses its conceit genuinely inventively and to a variety of tonal ends from deceit, to slapstick, to kindness, and then wisdom (and then love).


If you’re invested in the characters and the general thrust, the shortcomings are more than likely forgivable.  But, akin to Ned Ryerson being punched in the jaw, Curtis actively rejects the moral lessons of the picture he clearly venerates.  Tim is actively unchanging and, worse, he gains his ultimate goal of love early on, through deceitful means that we’re supposed to find charming (I guess so, anyway). I expect the “plot” argument is that he sacrifices the initial perfect date to help his friend (in fairness, the “dinner in the dark” date is probably the best-sustained sequence in the movie), so he’s only getting what he deserves. But Tim resorts to stalker activity to attain his goal and behaves in a generally underhand, morally dubious, manner, from sabotaging Mary’s relationship to revisiting his first shag until he gets it right. Essentially, their marriage is built on a series of lies, ones about which Tim never comes clean.


Is Curtis’ message (a peculiar one from a man so obsessed with engineering fantasy romances) that none of these subterfuges are important; they just go to underpin a strong marriage? Curtis doesn’t have the Machiavellian quality to provide any edge to Tim and, because he isn’t required to grow or learn in any kind of concrete way, his actions come across as all the more unsettling and less justifiable. Perhaps this is a side effect of the director saving (what he hopes is) the real emotional core of the movie for the father-son relationship, but this side is entirely lacking too. Tim loves dad; what's there to realise there? Other than that Curtis' capacity for maudlin self-indulgence can reach new lows even by his standards. Tim's realisation that he doesn’t need to relive any of his days because his life is so full is a wishy-washy lesson; there hasn’t been any dramatic meat or conflict to lead to such a point. Likewise, the instruction Dad gives him to try living everyday almost exactly the same “but this time noticing” is paid off by a couple of scenes where he smiles at a cashier. It’s utterly vapid.


As with all Curtis pictures this one revolves around his relentlessly upbeat, chocolate box idea of romantic love. I’m not expressly against this. I quite like Four Weddings and a Funeral, and The Tall Guy, and I generally find Hugh Grant’s stammering toff routine engaging and charming, despite my better instincts. Curtis doesn’t have a Hugh here to help him, however, so it falls to Gleeson, a good actor going through the motions of the fecklessly lovelorn. He isn’t quite up to the task, but it isn’t really his fault; you can hear the dialogue styled for a man with a greater flair for Received Pronunciation and a ready-and-willing floppy fringe. As Mary, Rachel McAdams goes the way of all female leads in Curtis vehicles, cast into shadow by the antics of her co-star. She has more presence than an Andie McDowell, but who doesn’t? And she was in Time Traveler’s Wife, so there’s some strictly limited inspiration going on (I’m surprised Curtis didn’t ask Anna Faris of Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel along for a scene). There’s also the usual coterie of eccentrics, female (Lydia Wilson is highly appealing as Kit Kat, the picture’s Charlotte Coleman character) and male (Tom Hollander as the misanthropic flatmate)


This wouldn’t be a Curtis joint without a ridiculously upbeat music montage or three. At least, I should think there are that many. As a director (this is his third) he’s utterly undisciplined, stretching the running time past the two-hour mark (mercifully, it’s still his shortest movie, but that’s a good half hour longer than it needs to be). And one wonders if lucky talisman Nighy (called on to spout lines about liking Nick Cave – Gleeson is stuck with Baz Luhrmann – and generally give off the air of someone thoroughly weary with repeating the same old performance ad infinitum) is such a blessing after all.  Maybe he should go back to lovely, floppy-haired Hugh if he wants a decent hit. About Time has one saving grace, however (well, two, given that none of the actors deserve a hard time for suffering through Curtis’ reheated leftovers); it’s not The Boat that Rocked.



Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism