Timeline
review by Melissa Prusi

"Stop looking at me! I can't act with all of you looking at me!"

Based on a movie-ready Michael Crichton novel, Timeline was on my must-see list before I even knew it was going to be made. 'But,' I fretted, 'will Hollywood screw it up?' I heard that Richard Donner was directing — yay! And that they'd cast Paul Walker in the lead — boo! The trailer rocked — yay!

The reviews were abysmal. Uh oh.

So it was with lowered expectations and a certain amount of dread that I ventured out to see it. And with all due respect to the hostile majority of critics who said it was either dull, laughable or both, I . . . liked it. We'll get to why in a minute. First, the set-up.

A group of archaeologists are digging up a castle in France. There's Andre Marek (Gerard Butler), passionate student of the Middle Ages; Kate (Frances O'Connor), token woman; and Chris (Walker), the head professor's son who doesn't care about history and is only there to win Kate's heart. The dig is funded by ITC, a tech company that's been providing them with hints about where to look for the coolest artifacts. How do they know? Professor Johnston (Billy Connelly) flies off to New Mexico to ask a few pointed questions. But instead of answers the crew unearths a 650-year-old document with the Professor's signature on it.

"Hands off the tunic, Andre. And when I say 'tunic' I mean 'my ass.'"

ITC has "faxed" Johnston back to the past. (Don't ask; just trust me that it makes about as much sense as any other movie time travel technique and you may as well just go with it.) He's stuck there and Bill Gates-esque techno-billionaire Robert Doniger (David Thewlis) wants the history buffs to go back and get him.

Let's start with the bad news, which falls into two main categories: stoopid changes to the story and Paul Walker.

I understand that adapting a book for the screen will always involve sacrifices, alterations, consolidations. Sometimes they get it right. (See the Lord of the Rings trilogy for an example.) What bugs me are changes that don't make the movie better. There are some great scenes in the novel that would have been terribly exciting on screen: Chris being thrust, completely unprepared, into a dangerous joust; Kate eluding a pursuer in the rafters of a banquet hall. They're gone, replaced with scenes that aren't nearly as original or compelling. Why? As a reader/viewer, I get the feeling that it's nothing more than an ego thing for the screenwriters (Jeff Maguire and George Nolfi), a way to mark this territory as theirs. Bah.

Then there's Paul Walker. Could somebody please explain this guy to me? He's cute in a vacant sort of way, but there's absolutely no personality there. As for his acting, well, there really isn't any of that either. It's bad enough when he's talking, but when he has to react to other characters I get the feeling that he's just humming a happy little tune in his head and waiting for his next line.

"Now if you can't find horses, just grab a couple coconut shells . . ."

But I was saying that I liked the movie. In spite of its flaws, it's really a lot of fun. I can forgive, even embrace, some of the changes to the story because Richard Donner makes it work. He builds suspense. He stages an incredible battle scene. Most importantly, amidst all the action he finds those moments that allow his actors to bring their characters to life. I particularly liked Butler, who wasn't exactly the Marek I pictured but won me over with the joy and passion he brought to the role; Thewlis' alternately glib and ruthless tycoon; Rossif Sutherland as a reluctant, panicky time traveler; Michael Sheen's charismatically cruel Lord Oliver; and Anna Friel as the plucky, pensive Lady Claire, particularly impressive since she makes a real character out of a role that, on paper, suffers badly in comparison with the book.

So, is Timeline a great movie? Oh no, not at all. (I haven't even mentioned the not-so-fresh dialogue, but the review's running long.) Still, in the Continuum of Crichton Adaptations it falls on the good side of average. It's no Jurassic Park, but praise the Maker, it's not Congo or Sphere either. Now if only they'd paid at least cursory attention to the language barrier. In the book there were these earpieces, see, and . . . oh, never mind.

Gorilla Pants rating: 2.5 out of 4 bananas