Timecrimes

"Time is a storm in which we are all lost." William Carlos Williams

"Time flies around here," says Hector's (Karra Elejalde) girl friend before time gets warped maliciously when he goes back in a time machine for about an hour. The ironic statement could as well apply to this intelligent sci fi, Time Crimes, that actually tries to show what confusion will reign if we ever do time travel.

While this Spanish thriller is reminiscent of Memento's playing with time and memory and various other time travel fictions, it lacks psycho-philosophical depth (notwithstanding the Hitchcock relevance of the hero using binoculars to see a fetching lass). Even more, character exploration is secondary to the puzzle of time traveling. The film, concerned with the tricky interplay of cause and effect in the travel, could have given more to the ethical-humanistic implications of voyeurism and bending nature to our will.

Its atmosphere is creepy enough, a black and white effect from muted color, a semi-real world where appearance and reality collide, not unlike this time-bound life itself without the machine. Its heroine, a beautiful nude played by Barbara Goenaga, suggests those Freudian chambers of our hearts where desire and violence seem only a door opening or time change away.

In an age of "system restore," where we can set our computers back in time, altering the continuum to expunge viruses and such makes the premise of Timecrimes seem almost possible. The ramifications from our computer restore are usually saving time and money; from a time machine may come a chance to upset the balance of nature, to throw ourselves into a primitive state of lawlessness. At least that's how writer director Nacho Vigalondo sees it, and his film theorizes.

Nice to have a thoughtful movie these days.

I love many time-travel movies, and this one seems very clever and tightly plotted at first, especially while you are watching it and figuring out how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together very nicely. But there is one big problem that others have already pointed out:

The things that he does mostly make no sense, and most of the movie is spent having him repeat these things that make no sense the next time he goes around the time loop, just so that the events in the first time happen the way he remembers them. And that's not clever.

I can do this easily by making up a simple example: Joe is sitting in his living room and sees a dead bird thrown through his window, he goes out to investigate, falls into a time-machine into the past, then when he sees himself in the living room, he kills a bird and throws it through the window so that he will go out to investigate. The End.

Not very satisfying is it?

There are elements that make this movie entertaining, especially the dark way that he solves the final problem and the fact that there are three versions of himself running around trying to make or stop things from happening, but otherwise, it's just an extended version of my story.

This movie proves what Hollywood does not practice. A great movie (like this one) does not need: famous name actors, good-looking/sexy protagonists, stupendous sets, expensive special effects, gratuitous violence, & violent shocks to be a successful, entertaining, and provocative movie, which this is in every respect. All it needs is good writing, capable direction, plausibility in terms of premises and plot turns, and decent acting. This has it all. And it's a great movie. The actors are all average looking. The sets look like a normal environment. The special effects are nothing special at all. And yet, there is not a dull moment in this extraordinarily good film. Saw it at the Cleveland International Film Festival this year. It stood out from the crowd as an exceptional film

Quite often, time-travelling films are too pompeous and full of complex moral dilemmas. This treasure has nothing of a sort. It is, finally, a story about "little man" in unusual circumstances of time travelling. A man, who isn't very bright, who isn't destined to save the world, who isn't parcticularly "good" or "bad". This - this is what I genuinely enjoyed whatching. There's no higher power behind all of this, nor great or malicious power - no, the hero is driven mostly by his own actions, worldview and lack of rationality. Because of that, more interesting things become when he starts falling into the bottomless pit of wrong choices, inevitable circumstances and despair. Hector is very much usual - and that's what makes the story so tense and interesting.

It's essentially a rewrite of Robert A. Heinlein's 1941 short story "By His Bootstraps".