Time for thought
Am I jaded? Am I too picky? Or could it be that movie writers don’t have a clue when it comes to time travel. Now, the synopsis for the film ’Kate and Leopold’ certainly doesn’t bode well for detailed scientific enquiry
. A british aristocrat (Huge Ackman) accidently falls into the future and woos a cold business woman (Meg Ryan).
Okay, So I love a good romantic comedy. Hell I even love a whole heap of really average ones and I’m even quite fond of a couple of really really poxy ones. (Oh Freddy Prince, you heart throb, you) Now the whole time travel phenomonen thing was glossed over quite quickly. Basically jump off a bridge, appear in the future/past. Simple.
Why, oh why can they not keep track of who is where. A crucial piece of the film relies on the fact that Meg is convinced when a photo of herself appears that shows her in the past. Okay, fine. Only one problem. The photo is taken by her ex-boyfriend (a time traveller) who is quite obviously GONE by the time she eventually turns up in the past. The camera and the subject in the camera are never anywhen near each other in the late 19 hundreds.
IT’S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE YOU HOLLYWOOD DUNDERHEADS!!! IT’S A LOGIC PUZZLE SO SIMPLE A THIRD GRADER COULD SORT IT OUT!!
This is why I love the British. They seem to get there head around it. They grew up watching Dr. Who and Red Dwarf. They’ve got a grounding in basic time travel theory that doesn’t have it’s foundations rooted in Micheal J Fox.
Perhaps it’s this that led to the film ’Lost in Space’. A film so riddled with time inconsistancies that it could almost distract you from the massive basic physics blunders. "We’ll fly through the planet!" (And quite frankly, who the F#$@ puts Joey from friends at the helm of a sharship?)
At any rate, Kate and Leopold could have been a very satisfying film but instead it’s left me seething to my Mac. SEETH SEETH SEETH!
posted at 3:19 pm Saturday February 26 2005