Reviews

No spoilers in the review. They occur in the discussion that follows.

I love this movie. Vaguely recall watching it back in the 90s, and just this week, thoroughly enjoyed watching it again.

My rating is a seven because those that I would rate eight to ten would be movies such as Galaxy Quest, Aliens, 12 Angry Men (1957) and To Sir With Love, just to name a few. While this is a lovely movie, when judged purely on its own merits I cannot consider it worthy of anything higher.

The pace is far more leisurely than most current movies of this type, which actually I consider a positive rather negative aspect of this movie. There is also a quality that I can only describe as being a 'niceness' that seems so very absent from most modern movies, films and television shows.

It was great to see well-known faces from the movies and television shows that I have watched throughout the years, and they all give good performances, even though the script does them no favours in all but a few scenes. Unusual for a movie of this type, there actually are a few brilliant moments of dialogue, where the scriptwriters truly excel themselves, but the majority is beyond even the most gifted of actors to make sparkle.

Ultimately, this movie stands the test of time. If you have seen it, then it is well worth a revisit, if you not, then you are in for a treat, especially if you enjoy positively oriented movies based on the premise of time travel.

End of Review.

Discussing the glaring lack of morality in 12:01.

Spoilers Ahead.

Being a made for television movie, I doubt that anyone was at all concerned about possible plot holes, which is fair enough. Once we accept the idea that a time loop, sorry time bounce, can exist, then it does not require much further suspension of disbelief to accept that the characters are going to do some idiotic things. However, I think it is disappointing when scriptwriters let supposedly good characters demonstrate a clear lack of morality. Which brings me to one of the main issues I have with this movie, the Denk Factor, if you will.

Dr. Robert Denk (Nicolas Surovy) is first presented in a negative light. He is seen as being in conflict with Dr. Lisa Fredericks (Helen Slater) one of the main sympathetic roles, he engages in what at first glance appear to be nefarious activities, and even worse the man not only smokes but keeps trying to get Lisa to take up the habit too. Oh the horror of it all! However, not all is, as it seems, because later we discover that he is not an antagonist, but rather someone who is very much on the side of the angels.

When Lisa is murdered multiple times, most of us are not concerned because we know that the whole day is going to start again anyway. I would hope that no one was at all would have feared for the Groundhog, the who drove angrily over the cliff, in a movie whose concept may well have been stolen from this one (if that is true, then all the more reason to love this movie for making that one possible).

It is slightly different perhaps, when Barry Thomas' (Jonathan Silverman) best friend Howard (Jeremy Priven) is murdered. Lisa is still alive, and as Barry is still hell-bent on closing that time bounce, there is a slight chance that Howard might well stay dead. Only slight, because who would have the nerve to kill off the comic sidekick? Right? Right.

Unfortunately, this is not the case for all-round nice guy Richard - yes, I know, he smokes, get over it. In his quest for justice, he is murdered, which both Barry and Lisa are informed of via a news report on the radio. We never see Barry's reaction, only Lisa's, which arguably appears to be a minor shock at best.

Being the stand-up guy that Barry obviously is, he must now let things go for at least one more cycle, so that Richard can be saved. Of course, Lisa will correctly pressure him to do so, seeing as she is just as morally upstanding as is Barry. Yes? Err...no. Sorry crusader Richard, your death is 100% final.

Now, what would the danger be if Barry goes for another cycle? My guess would be zero. We see that every cycle he becomes better at navigating the day, leading to success with Lisa, both in saving her from being murdered and in his romantic pursuit of her. In all fairness, winning her heart only having to start all over again, could be emotionally traumatic I suppose, but seeing as he actually seems to cope rather well with the various deaths that occur, I doubt it is all that rough on him. Besides, we are talking about the death of a decent man. Surely, that would warrant one more trip around the clock, even if you have start all over again to win the supposed love of your life.

It is not rocket science. For the next turn, first Barry has to win over Lisa again, something he is by now well accomplished at doing. Then, bring Richard into the circle, a very easy task as evidenced by Barry's chat with him in the car during a previous time bounce. Next, keep Dr. Thadius Moxley (Martin Landau) busy allowing for Lisa and Richard to disable the accelerator, possibly by simply removing a fragile part, damaging it, and then putting it back. As for proving Thadius' maleficence, that will still not be difficult. All that needs to happen, is Richard tells the police he has a tip-off that there is a plan to murder him in the underground carpark (Barry and Lisa can give him the information gleaned from the news alert). The perpetrators can now be caught in the act. Getting them to turn state's evidence against Thadius, in return for a plea deal, would be no more than a stroll in the park.

Where is the danger here? No death is permanent and continued bouncing will not end the world. Come on Barry! You only have to suck it up one more time! Okay, maybe two or three more times, seeing, as you do seem to have a gift for messing things up. Think Barry, think, you can save the man's life! In fact, you could even preserve Thadius, then we would get to see him face justice, along with his henchmen.

Which raises another minor issue for me. What happened to the henchmen? It would seem that they are off the hook. No one knows their identities, and it is doubtful that Thadius would have their names on record. They murder Richard and just drive off into the sunset. This speaks for me to the scriptwriters' lack of concern regarding plot holes and/or morality. I know, I know. People die, people get murdered, and criminals escape justice. This is only a movie. But in this case this is preventable, making the behaviour of the characters with whom we are supposed to identify, selfish and irresponsible at best, morally repugnant at worst.

For me, one of the hallmarks of a great movie is it makes us care deeply about the characters, emotionally investing in them, and not only the major ones but also some of the secondary ones too. Truly talented writers can even make this happen with the antagonist, as is the case with Dexter. But if we are to do so, then they must appear to us as being ultimately good at heart. Ignoring Richard's death does great harm to that perception.

Imagine if we saw Barry slap a young child across the face simply for the fun it of it that would not sit well with the man we consider him to be. How much worse then, to see him ignore the death of a good man, a death that he can actually do something about. We do not see him agonize over this, nor do we see him debate it with Lisa, either because the scriptwriters know they cannot justify it, or simply because they do not care.

Yes Lisa, looks like you are on to a winner there. Barry, now an unemployed and apparently directionless soul and yourself, a highly driven, highly respected scientist of exceptional intelligence.

I give it six months.

Okay. A year at most.

Bad script, weak storyline, inexplicable editing choices, along with weak 'special effects' and the stretching of the suspension of disbelief to a quantum level.

This movie abounds with illogical statements, actions and happenings, at times venturing into the realms of ludicrousness. There is nothing frightening about the 'monster'.

This is not a movie worth your time.

Review Containing Spoilers

In all fairness, I have seen worse. Some films I turn off well before the end, but in this case, I watched all of it.

Nicola Wright, who plays the lead role of the mother, is very good, considering the fact that she does not have much of a script to work with. At some points, her portrayal of a confused woman is exceptional, rising well above the quality of this film. Richard Harfst, as the gardener Bill, also limited by the script, is nonetheless excellent. An understated, believable, performance. One actor is allowed to chew-up the scenery, not quite to the Nicholas Cage level, but well on the way there. Shame on the director for allowing this to happen.

In the first act, when driving to their house in the country, the daughters make a brief stop for food. Their mother, Wendy, supposedly suffering from dementia, is asleep in the backseat. Unbelievably, while bickering, they get out and leave their mother behind, in the locked car, on purpose. Of course, Wendy wakes-up and freaks out, especially seeing, as she cannot open the car door, most likely due to child locks. To add insult to injury, when they return, they barely express any guilt.

Later, Wendy finds the Humpty Dumpty doll in an antiques shop. She does a terrible job of haggling over the price, ending up at £900 compared to her initial offer of £100 - always negotiate up from your own offer Wendy, not down from theirs. Not being able to get the money until tomorrow, they promise to return and pay then. None of this really matters, though, seeing as when they get home there is the doll sitting at the front door waiting for them.

Of course, one of the daughters calls the shop owner to find out what is going on. Nope. However, they do express concern about being accused of stealing it though. Nope. Well, they at least set about discovering how it could possibly have arrived there before them. Nope. So, what do they do? After a few brief comments, they take it inside with them. Sigh.

Now it appears that the shop owner, for reasons never explained, knows what is going on and that Wendy should have the doll. However, if that is the case, then why does she first tell them that the doll is priceless and therefore not for sale, then ask for £1,000, before finally landing on £900? After all, no money ever changes hands. In fact, when the youngest daughter visits the shop to learn more about the doll, the owner of the shop does not ask when she is getting her money. Furthermore, she already knows where the doll is, and alludes to his supernatural nature.

By the way, how dumb is the eldest daughter (scriptwriter). When the shop owner tells her that it is priceless, her reply is that if something is priceless, that means it is free. Worthless my dear, the word is worthless not priceless.

Humpty Dumpty is utterly benign, laughable in fact. It was stupid giving him teeth, at that too many for his mouth to contain, and appearing about as sharp as the non-existent brain of the puppet. Their first appearance made me laugh. There is no possible way he could use them, no wonder then that most of the time he uses a knife of some description.

For the majority of the movie, he moves very slowly, think traditional zombie slow. However, towards the end of the movie, there is a scene where Bill is staring at Humpty Dumpty from across the room. It goes on for far too long - as do a lot of other scenes - and while I was waiting for the inevitable movement of the doll, I thought to myself that there is no way the doll is suddenly going to be able to move super-fast. Surely, they will not try to do that and get away with it. Then the doll launched itself out of the chair at superhuman speed to attack Bill. However, why it needed to put its hands on the arms of that chair to lever itself up makes no sense at all.

Apparently, he can manipulate other objects with only his mind, as evidenced by his turning another doll's head. What does he do with this doll? I told you, he turns its head. Surely, you were not expecting more than that chilling act. I also noticed, earlier in the movie, he blinks his eyes, which only we witness. Why? I suppose in order to demonstrate to us that he is not just a doll, even though we already know that. Never does it again. A weird thing to do anyway, seeing as his eyes are made of solid wood, so do not need to be cleansed and moistened.

The plot is all over the place. There is an attempt at the end to have a twist, where they want us to buy into the idea that Wendy was actually doing all the killing and not the doll. Nice idea, but utterly fails due to a flawed setup and too much evidence that it could not be her. The eldest daughter turns out to be adopted, absolutely zero relevance to the story. If you can remove something from a script without affecting comprehension, it is nothing more than padding.

The end scene, when we discover that we have not escaped a character actually singing Humpty Dumpty, is spoiled by the fact that the supposedly dead, eldest, adopted daughter will not cease breathing. Not a forgivable minor lapse, but regular and obvious breathing. Director, where the hell were you?

There is so much more wrong with this movie, but unfortunately, I do not have time to write about it. The museum closes in about two hours, so I need to get going, as I have my eye on a priceless (free) Egyptian Mummy. Should look great in my bedroom. Just hope it is simply a Mummy and nothing more.

Till next time. That is if there is a next time. (Cue evil laughter)

SK.