The latest time travel film to grace the big screen has the advantage of being based on a short story by Ray Bradbury. Sadly, it is not among the better films using that particular plot device. Peter Hyams helmed this long-suffering production, which began shooting way back in 2002.
The plot itself is simple, and plays on the thought that the smallest change in the distant past can have catastrophic consequences on what you know as the present. On paper it is an intriguing concept. The thought that one broken blade of grass, one swatted insect, could irrevocably alter my reality, the thought is mind blowing. That is why this movie is so frustrating; it squanders that great premise in a wave of poor special effects, bad acting, and logic gaps that will give anyone a headache.
It is the future, 2055 to be exact, and time travel has been discovered. Instead of being used for the betterment of all mankind, one millionaire has the thirst to use it to his own gain. "Time Safari" it's called, rich men are taken 65 million years into the past to hunt an Allosaurus, complete with a commemorative video documenting their adventure. At first all goes well, but after a couple of jumps something happens and things start going wrong.
Before we get any further, I guess we should take a quick look at our major players. First up is Travis Ryer, played with a flat sleepiness by Edward Burns. He is a doctor looking to reconstruct the DNA of animals lost over time. Sonia Rand, played by Catherine McCormack, joins him. She is the mind behind the creation of TAMI, the time traveling computer. Finally, there is Charles Hatton, played with an over the top verve by Ben Kingsley. He is the man pulling the strings and making the money.
Sonia knows the level of danger inherent in time travel, and because of her knowledge, Hatton shuts her out of the project. Ryer, on the other hand, feels that what they are doing is adequately safeguarded against that unwanted potential. Of course, nothing can be completely safe, and a change is made.
Back in the present we watch as tidal waves of time changes sweep over the world. Each wave brings new changes, plant growth and strange animal hybrids, most notably a lizard/baboon. Our team frantically searches for what went wrong, what got changed, and how can they fix it. It is a frantic race against time as they are teetering on the edge of unknown evolution. As I write that, and reread it, it sounds pretty good.
Article comments
1 - The Fifth Dentist
I haven't seen this movie, but I noticed that it has a 7% freshness rating on rottentomatoes.com. That means that 93% of the critics that reviewed it didn't like it. That is one of the lowest I've ever seen. By comparison the Dukes of Hazzard got 11% favorable reviews.
2 - Matt Paprocki
I know I'll end up with this on DVD, but I find it amazing how this movie came out with NOTHING. I never once saw a trailer on TV, a major review (Ebert, papers, magazines), or a solid release date. IMDB constantly had it on their "coming soon" side bar, then one week it finally showed up as out.
Not a good sign as usual, but I still hold that small glimmer of hope I can find something to enjoy. It has to be better than Anacondas, right? Right??
3 - Victor Plenty
Maybe the effects suffered because they just couldn't decide whether or not the dinosaurs needed to have feathers.
4 - Chris Beaumont
This project seemed doomed fromt he start, filming was done in 2002 and was originally supposed to be out in 2003. Floods delayed the production, one of the backing companies folded, and I think they new they had a stinker, hence the low promotion. I only saw theatrical trailers.
Ya know, I never did sit down and watch ANacondas, but I will say I would rather watch a double feature of The Cave and Timeline, before this one again....
5 - Chris Beaumont
LOL Perhaps, Victor.
Still doesn't explain the horrible bluescreen work.... ;)
6 - Vern Halen
The original story is great.
Didin't the Simpsons do a take off on this story with Homer & a toaster? THAT was good.