"Time" for a new blockbuster movie?

"Hot Tub Time Machine" is a new entry in an old movie genre - time travel - which has had a bumpy road. I haven't seen it, but I suspect it's one of those lighter attempts at representing time travel.
This is the approach most liked by iconic film critic Roger Ebert, with whom I often agree. Perhaps I don't on this point, because I think the serious time travel movies have potential which is as-yet unmined.
The late writing genius Michael Crichton probed the concept seriously. Too bad the Crichton book "Timeline" didn't yield the same kind of movie success as "Jurassic Park."
Crichton was considered to have the golden touch after "Jurassic." The movie industry is like that, looking with awe at any blockbuster movie and then trying to ape whatever appeared to inspire that movie. So we got a subsequent movie on a Crichton book, "Congo," which of course didn't have that magic.
Because, a true blockbuster in the movie industry is really like catching lightning in a bottle. Actually the insiders all know that. But they're always groping and figure that if they can latch onto something like Crichton's storytelling prowess, maybe they'll be onto something. A gravy train.
Even though they know the realities, it's a risk-averse industry.
An exact parallel is when a major league baseball team hires a new manager whose previous gig was as a third base coach (i.e. glorified caddy) for a team that just won the world championship. The team figures "this guy must know something about winning." Well, he does know how to cash the check for his World Series share.
The Minnesota Twins once hired Ray Miller along these lines, demonstrating merit behind "The Peter Principle." Make no mistake, Miller is competent. But he's a pitching coach.
There is no blueprint for a blockbuster movie or any blockbuster creative work for that matter.
The movie "Titanic" definitely caught that "lightning in a bottle" and became a sensation beyond what any reasonable person would expect. It had elements that mesmerized adolescent girls.
The subsequent movie "Pearl Harbor," which I eagerly went to see on its opening weekend, appeared to be crafted in exactly the same way - painstakingly, as if to catch that "lightning" again.
But there was no lightning for the new "Pearl," or even moderate thunder. Technically it seemed well made. But today it appears to take a back seat to the 1960s Pearl Harbor movie "Tora Tora Tora," made before CGIs (computer generated images).
"Tora" and its sequel "Midway" show up often on the cable TV movie channels.
The movie "Pearl Harbor," made on a grand scale almost remindful of "Gone With the Wind," seems relegated to the dust bin by comparison. Right in there with "Cleopatra" (Elizabeth Taylor), which almost sank a Hollywood studio such was the scale of its failure.
So if you need some consolation dealing with some of the failures that life dishes out, keep in mind those Hollywood professionals who can be so woefully off the mark (e.g. Michael Myers with "The Love Guru").
"Hooray for Hollywood" for reflecting the human condition!

Crichton story had potential
The movie "Timeline," based on the Crichton book of the same name, was tailor made for sequels because of the whole premise: time travel. If the movie is a smash, get the gang of actors back together and just go back to another time period. (But please, not the early 1970s!)
"Timeline" the movie got lukewarm reviews but I liked it. It provided a real glimpse into the Middle Ages and intrigued us on the possibility of actually going back to an era like that and sampling it.
Yes, there was conflict and killing. (What, in the movies?)
But "Titanic" was a smash even though we know what the disastrous ending will be all along: lifeless bodies white as sheets bobbing in the water. And young people flocked to that flick over and over. It must drive an industry insider to drink. (That's a non-P.C. reference so let's say the insider would see his therapist.)
Crichton's book was a page-turner for roughly the first half but it strangely lost steam as you approached what should have been the climax. I felt that a good "payoff" at the end, with a special wrinkle, would redeem the book. It didn't happen.
Crichton was a genius but maybe he was in a hurry to turn this book out. I was engrossed in this book at the same time as a co-worker of mine, Lynn Klyve. I would always want to reminisce on that with her. She has left Morris for the "big city" while yours truly stays in Mayberry. It would be neat to see her again someday.
Let's step into our imaginary time machine and explore an earlier time travel story. The movie "The Time Machine," made in the 1950s, was successful. It had those "Morlock" characters that exuded creepiness to the point that a young movie watcher might want to keep the light on in the bedroom for a few nights.
"The Time Machine" was in a group of movies that baby boomers were more likely to get familiar with through television (e.g. NBC's Saturday Night at the Movies) than at the theater.
Others in this group were "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (in which the giant robot instilled fear just like the Morlocks) and "The Lost World," a dinosaur-themed movie fascinating because of the risky special effects: small lizards filmed in such a way as to make them seem giant.
It was risky because moviegoers might well just think it was ridiculous. But it seemed to work, and this was shown often as a TV feature through the years.
Celebrated reviewer Ebert, who himself caught "lighting in a bottle" by getting on TV at just the right time, with just the right kind of movie review show, wasn't enthused about the movie "Timeline." Time travel movies bothered him, he said, because of the unavoidable problems of logic they present. Crichton actually talked about this issue in his book.
Ebert might ask: "If I could actually go back in time, couldn't I just warn people about the impending attack at Pearl Harbor, for example, and change history?"
Crichton said the major forces of history were too massive and powerful for any one person to change. A person suddenly showing up, waving arms and claiming something like this, would probably just be dismissed, or worse get viewed with suspicion.
Crichton also said it was extremely risky for his time travel characters to even step out of their travel capsules. And it wasn't just because of the major forces of history they might encounter. The minor stuff, stuff you'd probably never imagine, could trip you up.
"You just don't belong there," a character was warned.
Indeed, Crichton's characters ended up in a series of calamities and snafus, with one of them being killed just for being suspected of being a Frenchman.
The movie "The Time Machine" had a re-make a few years back that sort of came and went. I watched it on VHS tape and found it to be OK. It was a commendable Hollywood effort that took a chance with no big-name stars.
It toyed with the logic issue too. We learned, for example, that if a loved one died on a certain day due to calamitous circumstances, you couldn't just go back and change that. That person would just die in another way on the same day.
One of "The Time Machine" remake reviews took it to task on special effects, claiming that the movements of the Morlocks (not as scary as in the first movie) were not realistic. I did not find this to be true at all.
Reviewers sometimes grope to say negative things. I think the foundations of that snobbish fraternity (Ebert excluded because he's a regular guy) are crumbling due to the new media.
Time travel movies have been a pretty hit-and-miss proposition. Too much of the latter. One of the "Star Trek" movies succeeded with humor on the subject.
"Timeline" could have captivated us but it seemed to swing and miss. Crichton's imprimatur wasn't enough.
There's still a void there. Hollywood, pay attention. Maybe there's another "Titanic" out there just waiting to be made.
As for "Hot Tub Time Machine," perhaps it's entertaining but not a classic.
-Brian Williams - Morris mn Minnesota - morris theater mn - bwilly73@yahoo.com