1980: "Somewhere in Time"

                         As a young child, my mom owned a VHS tape of Somewhere in Time in our video cabinet. I had never seen the movie nor had I ever seen my mom watching it. It was just a movie that existed in our house. I spent years as a kid studying the VHS cover; a picture of Christopher Reeve standing in front of Jane Seymour's face, which looked like it was emerging from a sepia-tinted fog. I was never interested in the movie itself; I was just curious why this movie was even here. It turns out it was a favorite of my mom's, and my mom, despite having very different taste in movies than mine, turned me on to a lot of movies that ended becoming some of my favorites (Arthur and Field of Dreams, to name a few). So I thought, okay, maybe I'll finally see why this movie held such a presence in our abode.
                       And the movie, as it turns out, is, well, crap (sorry, mom).
                     
                        Based on Richard Matheson's novel Bid Time Return, Somewhere in Time tells the story of a young playwright (played by Christopher Reeve) who discovers a old portrait of a beautiful actress (played by Jane Seymour) and determines to go back in time to meet her through the (questionable) method of self-hypnosis.
                        It is what anyone would expect from a soppy romance novel. The main problem is the script is so rigidly deterministic that the characters are robbed of any motivations, arcs, or characterization. They are simply driven by a sense of destiny.
                       For example, we never get a sense of who Richard or what drives him to take such drastic action to attain this unattainable ideal. Richard, from what I've heard, had a brain tumor in the novel, which carries way more weight (the implication that this is just a desperate final fantasy of a dying man). His actions are all driven by a script that tells him "this was meant to be" (though I think the movie was maybe trying to imply that his desperation is from writers' block, or a throwaway line about breaking up with somebody, but these potential reasons are just thrown under the rug). I think a little spontaneity on Richard's part would give the character a little more dimension than just simply looking at an old logbook from 1912 and confirming a destiny that's already written or having an elderly woman telling him to "COME BACK TO ME" (that whole prologue should have been edited out). Also, Christopher Reeve is not the right actor for this role. I don't really buy him as a playwright, a profession probably full of pompous, arrogant misanthropes obsessed with deadlines and mastery of their craft. That's probably a stereotype of the profession, but that would have probably given him an arc, at least (i.e., starts off as arrogant, becomes more compassionate).  But no, he is in full Clark Kent mode, with his nervous bumbling and aw-shucks earnestness. It's a bland performance with no underlying sense of pain or yearning.
                         Jane Seymour is not much better. Her doe-eyed, over-enunciating manner of acting doesn't justify her character's "Best Actress in America" distinction. She's not a strong character, bringing to mind Mary Hatch from It's a Wonderful Life, where her entire well-being hinges solely on George Bailey's existence. Her character is held under the thumb of her mustache-twirling stage manager (played with mock seriousness by Christopher Plummer) and remains haunted by Richard for the rest of her life.
                        And this is all for a romance that is not earned. This whirlwind romance lasts for what feels like one measly day and they have nothing in common. There's a montage where we see the lovers spending time with each other and in one moment, they are having a conversation....but we can't hear it. You know, character development.
                        Even the period detail comes across as cheap and stereotypical, like the hotel is holding a tacky Edwardian-era costume party for the guests. In terms of filmmaking, it's flat and hollow (though no one expects much from the director of Jaws 2 and Supergirl). The method of self hypnosis to go back in time kind of bothered me but that's a whole other discussion probably best left to quantum physicists and metaphysicians. If there's maybe one positive, John Barry's score is lovely (my mom will attest to this).
                        At the end of the day, the movie is just sad, in a pathetic sort of way. The tagline on the DVD cover is disturbing insight into the movie's psyche: "He sacrificed life in the present....To find love in the past." He sacrificed life......LIFE.....for what? For a love that might not be real? That's not exactly a good message to impart to the youth. Give up everything for love. A potentially burgeoning playwriting career brought down because of delusions? Granted if the movie had been aware of the sad implications of this fleeting romance, it would be forgivable. It's more depressing than romantic.

                    The movie, surprisingly enough, does have a cult following (the movie came out the same time as the much more successful The Blues Brothers). Fans of the film hold a annual celebration in the Grand Hotel at Mackinac Island (where the film takes place). That sounds kind of nice. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh on this harmless romance. For all the middle-aged ladies out there, go ahead and enjoy Somewhere in Time. Again....sorry, mom.