Somewhere in Time

Reincarnation

We keep being sidetracked by nagging doubts, like isn't it a little pointless to travel 68 years backward into time for a one-night stand? "Somewhere in Time" wants us to share its grand romantic idealism, about a love so great that it crossed the decades and violated the sanctity of time itself, but we keep being sidetracked by nagging concerns, like isn't it a little pointless to travel 68 years backward into time. We eventually lose interest in the film because it surrounds its love tale with so much tedious time travel nonsense.
That wasn't always the case. Last year's underappreciated and underappreciated film "Time after Time," which followed H.G. Wells and Jack the Ripper as they traveled forward in time to modern-day San Francisco, featured a love story that poked fun at the idea of relationships between people of different races. There are many traits in "Somewhere in Time," but slyness and amusement are not among them.
This film is dripping with melancholy. Its lovers are enshrined in such extreme romantic nobility that Rachmaninoff's Rhapsody plays virtually every time they appear onscreen. This is the kind of romance that requires you to lower your voice in its presence because it is sacred, serious, and amazing. Even the huge egos generally involved in such romances find them tedious. But let's get back to the movie. In "Somewhere in Time," Christopher Reeve plays a Chicago playwright who visits the Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island and discovers a photograph of an actress who performed there in 1912. He's enamored; nay, he's obsessed. He investigates the actress's career, falls in love with her, finds that time travel is conceivable from a pseudoscientific psychology professor, and hypnotizes himself to travel back to 1912. The film never makes it clear whether the author truly travels through time or is hypnotized into believing he does. It makes no difference. He meets the young actress, played by the preternaturally gorgeous Jane Seymour, once he's back in 1912, or so he thinks he is. "Is it... you?" she wonders aloud. Yes, it is! Yes, it is! Even with Rachmaninoff, a little goes a long way.
Of course, there is a villain. Christopher Plummer as the young actress's manager. He's been her mentor since she was 16, and he's furious at the intrusion of this man who appears out of nowhere, is dressed strangely, and threatens to kidnap his protégé.As the three of them steal about the rooms and gardens of the majestic Grand Hotel, there are some intrigues. However, there are never any moments that focus on Reeve and Seymour's romance - and, remarkably, the film avoids exploiting the fact that Reeve is from the future in their connection. Reeve's revelation of that knowledge may have resulted in a plethora of interesting revelations and paradoxes, but they are simply ignored.
Of course, this is Reeve's first film since "Superman," and he doesn't come across as particularly credible. He's a little stolid, a little awkward, and he's usually squinting a little because he's so fervently in love with this actress. The entire film is so solemn, so devoted to its message, that it eventually becomes ludicrous.