Plot: What’s it about?
H.G. Wells’ novel has inspired three movies. The first of which was aptly named "The Time Machine", next was "Time After Time" and now "The Time Machine" has been remade in 2002. The first and last of these stayed true to the novel, but the middle veered a bit. It kept the same characters, but stayed away from the Morlocks and such. In this adaptation, we find the title character of H.G. Wells (Malcolm McDowell) alive and well in 19th century London. Around a group of friends, he unveils an invention that he calls, aptly enough, a time machine. He explains how it works and why he wants to use it. But this is the time of the infamous Jack the Ripper (David Warner) and the prostitutes of London are not safe; as are its citizens. After a murder, the police are scouring the area and come across the little party that Wells is throwing for his friens, but the "Ripper" just happens to be one of them. Believing himself to be captured, he jumps into the time machine (unbeknownist to anyone else) and heads to the year 1979.
Now I know what you must be thinking…why the year 1979 of all times in the world? We never know, I can only assume that it’s when the movie was made. They wanted to make it "Present Day" and as such, this is when the killer was released in the "modern" world. Wells manages to see what the killer has done and follows him to the modern era (even though his plan had been to visit the "future" I doubt that 1979 would had been his first stop). He then meets a bank teller by the name of Amy Robbins (Mary Steenburgen) who helps equate him to the ways of the modern San Francisco. As we can assume, a chase begins and Wells won’t let up until Jack the Ripper has been caught and/or killed. While this is a rather offbeat drama for the time, it uses elements that we’re all familiar with and as such, it’s widely accepted that we’re more prone to accept them. The performances aren’t too outstanding (certainly not as as good as McDowell in "A Clockwork Orange" and Steenburgen in "Harold and Maude") but we stick with them because the basic concept of time travel is interesting to most people. A good movie with little supplements makes for an average DVD at best.
Video: How does it look?
Warner has created a brand new 2.35:1 anamorphic transfer for the film and having only seen it a few times, I would have never guessed that it was shot in that gauge. The level of detail and the overall clarity of the film did excite me (yes, I was actually excited). From the smoky (foggy, rather) images of the opening credits to the closing ones, the image suffers very little. Flesh tones are a bit muted due to the time period (no pun intended), but it’s still a great overall transfer. If only all of the DVD’s looked this good. The black levels are great and very little edge enhancement made for a very good-looking movie.
Audio: How does it sound?
While not a great sounding track, and not even a being a Dolby Digital 5.1, the track sound a bit dated. Most of the audio does sound ok, but a few moments of a "hiss" did strike me as odd. I’ve heard movies from this timeframe sound awesome, but this was more of a letdown. Granted that the film wasn’t made for sound, but the cheesy digital effects made some sounds that just didn’t make sense! All in all, a so-so mix, but was more like a mono mix than anything else. No major complaints, just don’t get your hopes up.
Supplements: What are the extras?
Only housing a commentary track by the director and McDowell, it’s not that lively. They seem to look back on the film with some admiration, but there are several gaps in the track that are distracting. It’s not the most informative either, as most of it is just a bit of gossip and "Remember this…" and so on. The original theatrical trailer (along with those for the original "The Time Machine" and the 2002 "The Time Machine") are included as are some brief cast bios. Some text only Production notes are included with references to anything resembling a time-travel movie is also included.
