Somewhere in Time (1980) User Reviews

Not for cynics or unromantics....leave films like this to us who have a heart....

[mark.waltz · 8/10 · 30 November 2013]

O.K., so there is a lot to grumble about here as far as reality and some missing plot points, but why gripe about a film that never ceases to leave me without shedding a ton of tears? Some people may complain that the constant repeat of Rachmaninoff's beautiful music is manipulative and overdone, that there is a lack of humor, and that so many things in the film just don't add up. But when you are touched by a film like this, hard-hearted critics don't matter, you forgive the mistakes, and overlook some of the sillier touches. What results is a time-travel drama about never-ending love that grabs you from the moment an old lady (Susan French) approaches aspiring playwright Christopher Reeve, places an old watch in his hand, and whispers, "Come back to me".

Who is this beautiful old woman with the face of an angel still wearing turn of the 20th Century get-up and why is she interested in a total stranger? Well, it takes years for Reeve to discover his own interest in her, and it is all by accident. I thought for years that the beautiful Hotel del Coronado near San Diego was the setting for it, having passed by that landmark back in the early 1980's, but further research proved me wrong, even though the original novel was set there and that they had originally intended to film it there. It is a beautiful resort right on Lake Huron where Reeve ends up, coming face to face with a portrait of the legendary stage actress who suddenly retired after a stage appearance there in 1912, ironically the same year as the Titanic disaster.

Researching her, Reeve discovers she is none other than the gorgeous old woman who approached him years before, now deceased, and realizes that somehow they are connected. A discussion with a time travel expert makes him realize he must travel back to meet her, and somehow he does. She (Jane Seymour) somehow recognizes him, but her jealous producer (Christopher Plummer) is suspicious. Somehow, he knows just who Reeve is, and believes that this will destroy her. Plummer schemes to keep them apart, but time travel, as Reeve was warned, is a dangerous thing, and just as romance begins to bloom, irony strikes leading to tragedy.

There is a gem of casting with Jane Seymour as the young Elise and Susan French as her in her 80's. Ms. French was everywhere in the 1980's: on "Dallas", "Falcon Crest", "Bare Essence", "Little House on the Prairie" and many other T.V. series. It seems to be more than a coincidence that their story is almost similar to that of Kate Winslet and Gloria Stuart's in "Titanic", with a brooch the prop of history rather than Elise's watch.

Reeve, following up "Superman" with this romantic drama, was a sensitive young actor, and he puts his whole heart into this project. Romance is the word here, and the ability to suspend disbelief is a must in order to appreciate every aspect of this sweet story. Bill Erwin is memorable as Arthur, the old bellboy whom Reeve crosses and meets as a young toddler decades before, and veteran actress Teresa Wright good as old Elise's former companion who reveals Elise's past to Reeve when he visits her.

The gorgeous Seymour is a radiant leading lady, filled with both fire and femininity, and here is as far from "Dr. Quinn" as you can get. This film unfortunately flopped badly during its initial run due to a cynical nature of the world in the early 1980's where the rise of block-busters stood in the way of a quiet old-fashioned fantasy romance from becoming a hit. Fortunately, there are many other non-cynics who are able to see with their heart and leave their brain on pause when watching films like this, and thanks to audiences like us, this film has gotten the cult status that it deserves, even though it is far from the typical cult film as you can get.

When Everything Seemed Possible

[JamesHitchcock · 8/10 · 10 February 2009]

Although "Somewhere in Time" is a film with a time travel theme it has (unlike, say, "The Time Machine") no overt science-fiction elements. It has, in fact, more in common with the supernatural romance films such as "A Portrait of Jennie" or "Pandora and the Flying Dutchman" which were popular in the forties and fifties. Another time-travel romance with which it has something in common is the British "Quest for Love" from 1973, although that film does have some science-fiction content and its hero travels not back into the past but rather to an alternate present in which (among other differences) the Second World War never took place.

The opening scenes take place 1972. Richard Collier, a young playwright, is approached by an elderly woman who places a pocket watch in his hand and pleads with him to "come back" to her. Eight years later Richard, suffering from writer's block, decides to take a break at an elegant turn-of-the century hotel (actually the Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island, Michigan). During his stay he becomes captivated with a photograph of a beautiful young woman, whom he discovers is Elise McKenna, a famous early 20th-century stage actress. He also learns that she was the woman who gave him the pocket watch eight years earlier, but that she subsequently died later that same evening.

Richard becomes obsessed with the idea of travelling back into the past to meet Elise as a young woman, and learns about auto-suggestive time travel from his old college professor. Through self-hypnosis, he travels back in time to the year 1912, where he does indeed meet Elise, who is staying at the hotel. The two fall in love, but they face an obstacle in the shape of her obsessively protective manager William Fawcett Robinson, who fears that the budding romance will damage Elise's career.

As with a number of time-travel films the plot, especially its dramatic conclusion, will not always bear the rigid application of strict logic. One might come to the conclusion that Richard's trip into the past was merely a self-induced hallucination were it not for the fact that concrete evidence survives to show that he actually did visit the hotel in 1912. His signature, for example, appears in an old hotel register for that year, and he himself was responsible for taking the photograph which came to obsess him 68 years later.

This is the film which proved that Christopher Reeve was more than just a musclebound superhero and that Jane Seymour was more than just a Bond Girl. There are also good contributions from Bill Erwin as Arthur, the elderly, long-serving hotel employee who remembers meeting Elise when he was a boy, and from Christopher Plummer as Robinson. Plummer does not play Robinson, as he could have done, as a straightforward villain; it is clear that he believes in Elise and will do anything to further her career. The relationship between Robinson and Elise is reminiscent of that between Lermontov and Victoria in Powell and Pressburger's "The Red Shoes"; there is a suggestion that, at least subconsciously, he may be in love with her, but on a conscious level his love for Elise the woman has been sublimated into his concern for Elise the artiste.

Director Jeannot Szwarc succeeds in evoking a romantic, dreamlike atmosphere, aided by the visual beauty of the Grand Hotel and its surroundings, by the radiant loveliness of Jane Seymour and by the elegance of the Edwardian costumes. Another important factor in creating this atmosphere is the lush musical score, composed by John Barry, and the use of the eighteenth variation of Rachmaninov's "Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini". The use of this piece is deliberately anachronistic; although Rachmaninov was already an internationally known composer by 1912, the "Rhapsody" was not written until 1934, so it is hardly surprising that Elise is not familiar with it.

This is a film with a loyal cult following; there is even an International Network of "Somewhere In Time" Enthusiasts. Cults, whether religious or cinematic, can often be incomprehensible to outsiders, and I therefore tend to be suspicious of anything described as a "cult movie", a phrase which can be a euphemism for "pretentious nonsense, likely to prove totally baffling to those who have not been initiated into the mysteries of the cult". There are, however, numerous exceptions, in which case the phrase can be more accurately translated as "excellent film unjustly neglected by the critics", and this is the category into which "Somewhere in Time" falls. Upon its first release in 1980 it was not particularly successful, either critically or at the box office. Its fanciful plot and its lush romanticism were perhaps out of tune with the materialistic early eighties, and this style of film-making must have seemed rather old-fashioned in the age of "Star Wars".

Yet since then appreciation of the film has increased, perhaps because we have once again learned to appreciate unashamed romanticism in the cinema. The date to which Richard travels back, 1912, is significant, as it comes towards the end of the last great romantic era in our history, before the world was irrevocably changed by the mechanised destruction of the First World War. The late Victorian and Edwardian periods (often known as the Progressive Era to Americans) seemed to be an age of optimism, of progress, an age when everything seemed possible. This is a film which captures something of the spirit of those times, a film which celebrates the power of love and its ability to achieve the seemingly impossible. Seen in this light, the implausible nature of the plot need not trouble us. 8/10

Well-made romance across time

[blott2319-1 · 7/10 · 17 February 2021]

I feel as though many Michiganders, like myself, have a unique relationship with Somewhere in Time. It is one of the few movies where I am completely familiar with the location it was shot, and the entire movie just makes me think of the tourist attraction that is Mackinac Island (which I have visited many times.) This film is extremely popular up there and you can find copies for sale, along with memorabilia from the shooting, all around the island. It is a place that is a throwback to another time, and at least the exterior of the Grand Hotel still looks strikingly similar today to how it looked when they filmed this 40+ years ago. In fact, the part of the movie that is most jarring are the shots where they actually show a car driving up to the Grand Hotel, since motorized vehicles are prohibited on Mackinac Island. I wonder if this is how people who live in cities like New York, L.A., and San Francisco feel when their hometowns show up in so many movies.

Anyways, let's get to the actual content of Somewhere in Time, aside from its location. There is a power to the romance in this film. It has a truly magical quality as it seems to embrace the idea of two people being made for each other and destined to be together. The premise of them meeting across time is kind of crazy, and I'm not even sure what motivates the main character so strongly, but I think you have to let go of the critical part of your brain to appreciate the magic of this story. There is virtually no time spent exploring the mechanism that is at play, because that isn't the important part of the plot. Personally, I kind of wish the movie involved more time travel, and actually had our main character bouncing back and forth many times. I think that's simply because I'm more intrigued by the genre of time-travel, than I am by romantic dramas. The way it is presented in the film feels somewhat rushed and it never takes full advantage of an interesting premise.

Christopher Reeve isn't bad in the lead role. He has good range and seems to fit in reasonably well in both time periods. I found his performance at the end of the movie to be particularly powerful. He also has some nice chemistry with Jane Seymour. She is a great actress to play a love interest in this type of movie, because she does possess a timeless beauty. Her big speech on stage is delivered so brilliantly that I felt even someone who was struggling to enjoy this movie would have to buy in to some degree, because of her performance. I did struggle a bit with Christopher Plummer's character, as he seems to exist merely as a plot construction to create conflict. The film teases that there might be more to this character, but nothing ever comes of that. I will say that the ending of Somewhere in Time was a struggle for me. It is well done, but not exactly how I hoped it would resolve. I am certainly engaged by the plot, though, and I will gladly watch it again in the future.

One of the most achingly beautiful movies ever

[kanerazor · 10/10 · 3 December 2002]

Somewhere in Time is a movie any sensitive person with a heart will love, I guarantee you. From the opening at the theater to the unbelievably moving final scene, I have never seen a film so passionately and yet so innocently depict the power of absolute, all-encompassing, unconditional love.

The story is so simple, yet therein lies the beauty. Richard Collier, a man with no love in what otherwise seems like a nice enough life, becomes enchanted at the sight of Elise McKenna's painting and with only the power of his heart travels back to her time. Once there, he looks for Elise, and finds her. Elise is confused and does not immediately respond because of her manager W.F. Robinson, but she quickly returns Richard's love. I will not say anymore, other than that the ending made me feel so warm and yet made me want to cry. You will be hard pressed to find a movie lighter on plot, and there are many questions left unanswered, but that's perfect because Somewhere in Time is very surreal, and dreamlike even. The emphasis is not on watching events, but on simply feeling love, and this is as close as anyone has ever come to making a movie out of pure emotion.

Jane Seymour looks radiant while on screen but this is Christopher Reeve's movie. Reeve, after amazing everyone with his talent, good looks, and charisma in one of the biggest blockbusters ever, could have become one of Hollywood's all-time great leading men. Instead, a series of horrible decisions about what roles to take and not take made it so that he had to do TV movies to pay the bills by the late 1980s. To this day, to 99% of the public he is the paralyzed Superman and nothing more. But this is the one movie that shows what should have been. He very convincingly depicts Richard first as goofy kid, then as empty older man, then as someone simply awestruck by love and determined to let nothing stop him from getting the breathtaking Elise. Then, in the final scenes, he portrays his anguish so remarkably it is wrenching to watch.

Also deserving of special mention is Christopher Plummer, who seems to be an extraordinary actor on the basis of the two films I've seen him in (the other is The Insider). A lesser actor would have made Robinson into a mustache-twirling villain, and brought the whole production down to the level of a soap opera. Plummer, however, with his nuanced performance, makes us hate Robinson, but also makes us his feel his pain. Through his subtle mannerisms, we see that Robinson himself deeply longs for Elise's love, but has probably never been loved and never will be loved by anybody. We thus realize how incredibly lucky Richard is. I personally saw Robinson as perhaps someone whose father never loved him and whose mother died when he was very young, and he has spent his whole life wanting to truly take care of someone like Elise but it is as if he has been rendered incapable. He is still contemptible for the things he does to Richard, but he is also a tragic figure, and the script has nothing to do with that-it's all Christopher Plummer.

John Barry's score is also among the most enchanting in movie history, in my opinion. I have never heard a score which so wonderfully conjured up feelings of timeless love. Jeannot Szwarc may not be a well known or otherwise accomplished director, but he does this one perfectly. This movie in the wrong hands could so easily come across as corny and trite, but instead it is such an absorbing masterpiece. Every element in this movie is just perfect, and it should be universally considered one of the greatest love stories of all time (if not the greatest, like I think it is).

As it is most people have never heard of it, but it is nice to know that a small devoted following gives it the recognition it deserves. I hope it continues to win people's hearts for generations to come.

Virtually the Best Movie Ever

[KBONE · 30 July 1999]

I am a young man who grew up loving horror, action, and kung-fu movies. I hated the Victorian books we were forced to read in school. However, the one exception to the rule has been this movie. I LOVED this movie. The story line was solid. The direction was superb. And the acting was so good, that I have always wondered why Reeves & Seymour's career didn't catapult after this film. I have watched it many times since it came out, and ever time I am captivated. If you can't relate to this movie, I think you must have a heart of cold stone. This gets a strong KBONE rating of 10 on a scale of 1 to 10. Pay special attention to Seymour's soliloquy during the play and Reeve's facial expressions during that time as well Reeve during the last 10 minutes of the movie. I really can't say enough about this masterpiece.

Lovely old fashioned romance, though not believable

[roghache · 6/10 · 1 July 2006]

I admit to being somewhat disappointed in this movie as I'd had great expectations, considering its cast with three of my favorite stars, Christopher Reeve, Jane Seymour, and Christopher Plummer. The old fashioned love tale is beautiful, but I felt that the context of time travel should have been managed more skillfully.

The story centers around a Chicago playwright, Richard Collier, who is approached on the opening night of his first play by an old lady who begs him "Come back to me", and presses into his hand a classic pocket watch. Several years later he discovers that this lady is Elise McKenna, a famous stage actress from the early 1900's, whose vintage portrait hangs in the Grand Hotel. Through self hypnosis, he manages to travel back in time to that era, where he meets the beautiful Elise and they fall in love, despite the objections of her manager. Also, despite the difficulties of being separated by almost a century in time.

The actors are all wonderful in their roles, the handsome and charming Christopher Reeve playing Richard, with Jane Seymour as Elise, absolutely beautiful, elegant, and radiant in every scene. Christopher Plummer is cast in the part of the overbearing, overprotective, mean spirited, and possessive manager, William Fawcett Robinson. Though Plummer's role isn't intended to be sympathetic, his acting is of course impeccable, and he's such a favorite of mine that I can never quite picture him as the villain of the piece. Personally...don't get angry with me...but I kind of wished he'd ended up settling down himself with this lovely actress for which he obviously has unrequited feelings.

My main problem lies with the time travel. This is definitely NOT a science fiction movie. While I wouldn't have expected technical scientific methods in a romance movie, surely the screenwriters could have come up with something a bit more believable than this silly self hypnosis. Though I'm quite a romantic myself, this really made the whole plot seem a little foolish. Also, there are just so many loose ends in connecting the 1912 Elise and the late 20th Century Richard. By the end, I wondered whether I had missed something along the way, so was a bit relieved to discover that a few others had the same problem. With such sloppy screen writing, I felt the producers were relying a little too much on the famous name stars and the dramatic High Romance of it all.

It's all pure dreamy romance, fantasy, and fairy tale throughout. Wonderful cinematography, beautiful scenes of Michigan's Mackinac Island and the Grand Hotel, and lavish Oscar nominated turn of the century period costumes. If you can just suspend all critical thought processes, you can enjoy this movie as a haunting fairy tale, an escapist romantic fantasy.

Touching Time-Travel Tale

[ccthemovieman-1 · 10/10 · 26 November 2005]

Being one who always seems to enjoy time-travel stories, it's no wonder I like this movie so much, but it isn't the interesting "time" angle that draws me in: it's also the fact that this is one of the most touching love stories I've ever seen. I'm not usually a big fan of romance stories, but this one has always moved me, maybe because, as another reviewer points out, it's from the man's point of view.

The film is a wonderful old-fashioned type of story with a really nice feel for the period (1912) and is simply a pleasant, leisurely-paced story I found comfortable. Would kids of today like this? No. Too slow for them. Too bad, because I found the movie moved pretty well. The 100 minutes went by quickly.

Christopher Reeve is the star of the film but personally I found Jane Seymour and Christopher Plummer far more entertaining. The theme song, "Somewhere In Time," is one of the prettiest songs ever and that adds to the sad and frustrating romance angle of the story. The language also is quite tame. Yes, it's a bit "sappy" at times, but for sentimental people, this is a nice film to keep.

My only real complaint is I've never seen a sharp transfer put on a DVD yet. There have been two DVDs out and both have that grainy look to them. That's disappointing because this would really look nice with a clear picture. The film deserves better treatment.

NOTE: A Blu-Ray of this film was released in March of 2014 and finally does this great film justice!

Ask time to come back

[DogePelis2015 · 7/10 · 28 January 2022]

It's a pleasant love story with Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour; it is recommended.

I don't understand why the critics received it so badly.

It doesn't deserve a 29 rating on Metacritic.

A Classic!!

[dalancofer · 10/10 · 13 October 2005]

In 1984, this movie got a second life on cable after its initial release to theaters and subsequent bombing at the box office in 1980. We should all be thankful for cable! This is a classic film in every respect...well directed and acted.... but would it have had the same impact without John Berry's absolutely beautiful score? At any rate, it is a classic film and enjoys an enormous cult following as well as an annual gathering at the Hotel where many of the actors have come to participate. "God bless you Chris Reeves, rest in peace"

This goes beyond mere chick flick

[Mr-Fusion · 7/10 · 17 November 2009]

"Somewhere in Time" is nothing if not deeply sentimental; like one big romance novel hurled up onto the screen. And that unrelenting sincerity is the key to making all of this work. It's what makes you accept the silly time travel mechanics and just go with it. It's nowhere near science fiction; this is pure fantasy, set to the tender strings of a priceless John Barry score. It's also nice to see Christopher Reeve in a welcome departure from the cape (I can't help the comparison; I was reared on Superman movies).

But even with all of that, you don't have a movie if you don't find the right Elise McKenna. But they did. Jane Seymour is the twinkling gem in this crown. She is every bit as beautiful as we're led to believe (and not just in the portrait). She lights up the screen with radiance. The reveal of that photograph is startling.

7/10

Every breath you took.

[Pjtaylor-96-138044 · 4/10 · 21 January 2021]

'Somewhere In Time (1980)' is a really misjudged movie, one that basically garners the exact opposite reaction than it ought to. Though it's generally well-made and has a strong initial concept, its story is so strange, strained and full of bizarre decisions that it's difficult to engage with on any level other than pure bemusement. Its issues all lie in its story. It has decent acting, direction and, even, dialogue but its narrative is so shoddy that it sinks the entire endeavour. It has three obvious problems. The first and most detrimental is the fact that its hero is, essentially, a stalker. He takes one look at a photograph of an actress from the twenties and develops an instant obsession with her, making the odd logical leap that he can - and must - bend space and time itself in order to meet her. The guy just comes across as plain weird, to be honest. Plus, the story considers his behaviour to be oh so romantic when in reality it's oh so inappropriate. Once he makes it to the same decade as her, he pesters her - despite multiple rejections - into spending some time with him. After this happens, the piece becomes a lot less disturbing. The eventually mutual relationship that develops is relatively charming, if rushed, and the story starts to head into more comfortable romantic territory, with a jealous manager threatening the come between the focal pair in a typical yet welcome way. The second of the flick's major issues, which pales in comparison to the first, is the actual method of time travel it employs. It's just completely unbelievable. Of course, time travel itself is an inherently fantastical concept and, in pretty much every instance I can think of, you just have to sort of 'go with it'. However, the mechanics of manipulating time are usually either completely glossed over ("oh look, a magic painting") or hand-waved away with a little sci-fi jargon ("oh look, a flux capacitor"), even in movies which aim to explore said mechanics and their consequences. Here, we're asked to believe that our hero can physically transport himself across the ages simply by immersing himself in period-appropriate props and wishing it would be so. Seeing him toss and turn, sweaty and frustrated, trying to will himself back through time is just plain funny (and it isn't supposed to be). The only way it 'makes sense' is if everything that follows is some sort of fever dream; the physical evidence of his trip could be chocked up to coincidence and hallucination. However, this reading just makes the narrative seem, well, relentlessly sad. It isn't about a time-warping romance, it's about a mentally ill man's decline into madness. Surely, this isn't what the picture is trying to portray? Like I said, though, this is a far smaller problem than the lead's obsessive tendencies because, after a certain point, you can almost totally ignore it. The third issue is the ending. I won't discuss it in detail so as not to spoil it, but I will say that it represents an incredibly strange and somewhat disconcerting effort for the piece to have its cake and eat it, too. I can't quite express how off base and rushed it is, really. Overall, though the picture isn't a terrible in-the-moment experience and you can laugh at it now and again, it's a weird and uninspiring affair with some pretty major script problems. Its score absolutely slaps, though. 4/10.

Only for the imaginative and the warm hearted

[ADOZER200 · 10/10 · 15 August 2003]

One day i was going through my friend's movies and i was picking some of the really good ones to watch. His wife grabbed somewhere in time and told me that it was good. I was very unsure about the movie but i watched it anyways. By the end of the movie i was in awe. The acting is excellent. The story was creative. The dialogue was extravagant. The music was fantastic. The cinematography was terrific. This movie was awesome. Yes it is a romance movie for all you people who hate romance movies but if you have to watchan origina and entertaining love story then i recomend this one. Tust me guys it not your typical love story!

A touching romance but also a little weird

[Scaramouche2004 · 7/10 · 27 January 2023]

I do not mean to disrespect or disparage this film in anyway. I know it has a hard core fanbase and I can certainly see why. It is well acted and executed and it certainly one of the most romantic of all romance movies.

I did enjoy the film but it did make me feel rather uneasy in places. Read on an I'll explain why.

If you haven't seen it, the basic plot is a young play-write with writers block in 1980 (Christopher Reeve) sees a portrait of a beautiful actress from 1912 (Jane Seymour) and falls madly in love with her. (And let's face it who wouldn't? She was and IS incredibly beautiful)

His obsession leads to the discovery that the actress is the old woman who 8 yrs previously had once appeared out of nowhere, gave him an ornate pocket watch and begged him to "come back to me" a mystery not resolved until now.

Knowing somehow he has an overwhelming connection with this woman, he literally wills himself back to 1912 to be with her.

The romantic aspect of this film is very touching. For two people to have such a strong and unbreakable connection and attraction that it breaks down the barrier of time itself will be enough to win over most romantics I'm sure, but I think on the whole we as an audience are expected to suspend disbelief a little too far with this movie.

The time travel aspect is of course fantasy. All time travel is so I don't want to put too much stock into it, but in this film there is no time machine or time portal, he merely wills himself back to 1912 by the power of suggestion. I mean if we could really do that I think we would all have dumped the 2020's long ago and we would all be living in the past. It's just too much of a nonsense for a viewer to believably accept..fantasy or not.

Then we have the first meeting of our two time crossed lovers. These were the scenes that made me feel the most uneasy. You have the beautiful Ms Seymour innocently strolling near some woodland and all of a sudden a man she has never seen before slowly walks towards her through the thicket with a look of pure desire on his face. I'd defy any woman not to have run a mile..even if it was the incredibly handsome Christopher Reeve.

Then as she is walking back to the Hotel, he's following her, matching her pace just a few steps behind. I'm not going to lie to you reader, this all seemed pretty creepy!

Yet despite this, love does bloom between the two leads and it is very heartwarming to watch and the film redeems itself as a result.

I was however a bit disappointed with the ending. Lovers of romance always wish for a happy ending. I feel in this case the ending was more disturbing than happy. It again made Reeve's character seem like he was harbouring an extremely unhealthy obsession driving him to insanity rather than true love.

In my opinion a better ending would have been for Seymour's character to have found a way back to him in the 1980's where they could live their lives together in a much more liberated era, one where she could inspire him to write again and resume her own career.

However, as in the case of Wuthering Heights (another book/film touching on a theme of an unhealthy romantic obsession) a large hot steaming bowl of death was served for our dessert instead. Such a shame!

Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour make a great cinematic paring and their chemistry really shines, but the great Christopher Plummer almost steals the film as Seymour's manager/mentor/Svengali/would-be-lover who is literally Von Trapping his pants at the thought of losing her to the taller, younger, much more physically handsome Reeve. He plays his role with a sinister charm that has you loathing him and in a way sympathising with him in equal measure.

Another thing that was in danger of nearly stealing the film from its two leads was John Barry's beautiful score. It really is so beautiful and an unusual departure from Barry's usual fayre. It's a shame he never wrote more softer offerings.

All in all, it's a good film built around a great idea but it could have been so much better.

Dubious, Delusional & Freaky...

[Xstal · 4/10 · 19 October 2020]

A schizophrenic with a stalker inclination falls in love with a photograph of a beautiful actor from 1912 and proceeds to hallucinate that he can travel back in time and pester her until she succumbs to his freaky disposition. When he snaps out of it he proceeds to stay off his medication which wasn't a good move.

The film affirms that love is an undeniable force which goes beyond us...

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 9/10 · 26 December 2003]

Christopher Reeve takes on the role of (Richard Collier) a successful Chicago playwright who is approached (in May 1972) by a very old woman (Susan French) who will alter the course of his life eternally...

The thoughtful old lady presses a classic pocket watch, from a past existence, into his right hand and intensely whispers four haunting words 'Come back to me,' which will affect him forever...

Eight years have passed and Richard is seeing his work incredibly sterile, gently afflicted with a case of lesser inspiration... So he packs his luggage and heads out to an island of enchanting beauty, to the Grand Hotel on the Straits of Mackinac waterfront...

While waiting for the huge dining hall to open, he tours the grand old building's museum, and sees a portrait of a lovely woman... He becomes obsessed about finding the truth behind the old photograph and begins questioning the people that knew her past... What emerges is a wonderful woman who is the first American stage actress in 1912 to create a mystique in the public's eye... She is the same lady who visited him that night at the premier of one of his plays...

Richard finds himself intrigued... There is so much to hear... People who knew Elise McKenna when she was young said that she was quick and bright and full of fun... Strong, willful, not at all the way she was later...

Seeking help from an old philosophy teacher who had written a book about 'Travels through time,' Richard attempts to disassociate himself entirely from the present, move everything out of sight that could possibly remind him of it, hypnotize his mind, and transport himself backward into the past, into June 27, 1912, into the life of the stunningly beautiful and talented Elise McKenna (Jane Seymour).

Nominated for Best Costume Design, the motion picture is a romantic fantasy that avoids any use of machinery in action... The time travel theory is completely non-scientific... The film captures the idea of a fine young man moving back among other time periods, and affirms that love is an undeniable force which goes beyond us, a force with no limit to the spiritual power, with no end to the potential of spiritual expansion...

Fantasy Classic

[Tommy-5 · 30 June 2002]

Somewhere In Time is not only a fantasy story. It is romance, science fiction, and fantasy rolled into one, based on Richard Matheson's novel, Bid Time Return, (Matheson also wrote the screenplay and has a cameo appearance in the film). Shot in 1980 and released by Universal Studios, it is a wonderful and, I feel, classic film that has stood the test of time. I am often surprised at how many persons of adult age have seen it. I cannot understand why Somewhere In Time has been panned by the critics since its release. Filmed on location in Chicago and Mackinac Island, Michigan, Somewhere In Time is a little long at 104 minutes. However, the story never drags so this is not a big liability. Directed by Jean Szarc, the cast is first rate, starring Christopher Reeve, (what a standard of personal courage he has set for us in recent years!) as the playwright Richard Collier, Jane Seymour, one of the loveliest ladies to ever grace either the large or small screens, as the actress Elise McKenna, and the fine character actor Christopher Plummer as the mean-spirited W.S. Robinson, McKenna's agent. The story begins in May, 1972. Playwright Collier is visited by a very old woman at a party he is attending at Millfield College, close to the Grand Island Hotel on Mackinac Island, which will be so important to the story later. She approaches and hands him a pocket watch. Cryptically, she says, "Come back to me.' We now fast forward eight years to Chicago, 1980. The restless Collier, who has recently broken up with his lady friend, is drawn to The Grand Hotel. Collier drives up to Mackinac Island and checks into the hotel. The kind-hearted Arthur, who has lived and worked at the hotel for 70 years, asks him if "they had met before." Collier assures him they have not. Collier chances upon an old photo of the turn of the century actress Elise McKenna in the hotel museum and is mesmerized by her. Arthur tells him that she appeared in a play at the hotel in 1912. Collier's obsession quickly grows and he begins research on her life. He comes across a photo of McKenna as an old woman and remembers her as the mysterious lady he met at the party. He discovers from her housekeeper that McKenna died eight years previous, on the very night she made herself known to him, and that something happened during her hotel appearance in 1912. After that, according to the housekeeper, she was never the same. During his visit to McKenna's home, he discovers a book on time travel that Elise read "again and again." After visiting with the book's author and, finding his own name in an old Grand Hotel register from 1912, Collier makes an intense effort to slip into the past, and succeeds. Soon, he meets Elise in the hotel, (he has transported himself to the time when Elise McKenna is staying in the hotel, preparing for her performance), and the scene where he and she meet is quite moving. At this point, the story becomes even better because Reeve does not have to carry it by himself. Seymour and Plummer step in and, what had been a good picture, becomes an excellent one for the duration. Richard and Elise quickly become drawn to each other, much to Robinson's unease. Robinson, who loves her but will not admit it, has a genuine concern when the playwright Richard Collier cannot name any of his work that he is familiar with. There is an unhealthy tension between these two strong-willed men until film's end. There are many interesting segments through this portion of the story. Entering the hotel restaurant, Collier seems to walk forever. The shot of the beautiful Elise, sitting at her makeup table with hair down and thrown over one shoulder, daydreaming of Richard, is enough to take the breath out of any man, (certainly this one!). The kiss first between Richard and Elise is very gentle and tender, and another lump forms in the throat when Elise again unpins her hair as Richard closes the door to room 117. But, perhaps the best scene in the entire film is when Elise, caught up with emotion, seems to ad-lib directly to an equally emotional Richard, sitting in the audience, during the hotel performance. Now is a good time to note that Jane Seymour possesses an interesting combination of hesitation and come-hither in look and demeanor. Ms. Seymour is something you do not come across often: an extremely alluring woman but very much a lady. The wholesome Reeve played off of her extremely well. The furious Robinson loses control of himself and has Richard beaten by thugs, causing him to lose credibility with his star forever. However, fate deals a cruel hand to the star-crossed lovers as, just when they have admitted their love for one another, Richard is abruptly returned to 1980, waking up in the same bed he was originally transported from. I won't give the story's very touching finale away, I will just say that the emotionally devastated Richard spends the final few minutes of the story attempting to return to 1912 and Elise. A few final comments. For fans of romance, fantasy and science fiction, Somewhere In Time will indeed be a special treat. (That the music is hauntingly beautiful only enhances the mood). It was pleasing to see Richard Matheson, author of such hard-edged tales as The Omega Man and The Shrinking Man, (to name but two), and who is seen as an astonished viewer during Elise McKenna's Grand Hotel performance, turn out such a powerful love story. I noticed only one glaring editing mistake, and that is an excellent accomplishment for a period story of this length. Near film's end, the heartbroken Richard lies listless and semi-comatose in a Grand Hotel guest room, pining for Elise, for a full week. When Arthur, (The gentleness of the lifelong hotel servant impressed me. I wish I could meet a few Arthur types at hotels I stay in!), finds him, the fact that he has had little food or water for days and is dangerously close to death is impressed upon us. However, when we see his face, he is clean-shaven and way too bright-eyed for a man under such a self-imposed ordeal! I hope that perhaps someday Christopher Reeve's health is such that he can once again co-star with the ever beautiful Jane Seymour. Mr. Reeve's physical limitations notwithstanding, I believe they would still make a terrific screen team.

"Keep the mystery, always the mystery."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 27 July 2018]

This is one of those time travel anomaly stories that's bound to make your head hurt if you think about it too much. There are a number of circumstances revealed to the viewer that ought to take on significance but are rendered meaningless over the course of the story. The biggest one perhaps has to do with the pocket watch that the eighty five year old Elise McKenna presents to Richard Collier (Christopher Reeve) at the beginning of the picture, along with the enigmatic plea - "Come back to me". During Richard's rendezvous with Elise (Jane Seymour) in 1912, she doesn't recognize the watch as her gift to him in the future. Is that because she hadn't acquired the watch yet at the time she spent a couple of days with Richard in 1912?

Similarly, when the older Elise approaches Richard in 1980, how does she recognize him as someone she knew in the past if Richard's trip to the past hadn't happened yet? In fact, it occurred after she died. So perhaps the better explanation of the events that occurred in the movie had more to do with Richard having a realistic feeling dream sequence, or maybe even experiencing a genuine, self imposed hypnotic event.

So maybe the best thing to do is simply sit back and enjoy the film for it's treatment of an unfulfilled and tragic love story. Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour certainly make for a handsomely attractive couple, with the period clothing and appointments adding to the charm and romance of the picture. My favorite scene had to do with the spontaneous dialog Miss McKenna injected into the play that was meant to express her love for Richard. The name of the play was 'Wisdom of the Heart', and Elise's monologue captured the essence and beauty of her brief relationship with Collier, with no one in the audience any the wiser that she was speaking extemporaneously. I thought that was a cleverly done scene that only added further resonance to the mystery of the story.

Romance "writ" large---

[Ishallwearpurple · 9/10 · 16 February 2003]

---"Somewhere In Time" is one of the most romantic films ever. It is also a wonderful period film. Shot at the Grand Hotel on Mackinaw Island, the 1800's hotel and grounds, the background of the Great Lake and lighthouse, just enhances the romantic atmosphere. It sure made me HAVE to visit the island and spend a magical day walking around, having lunch and visiting Jane Seymore's picture in the museum room, just like in the film.

Have any two people ever been filmed so beautifully? The period dresses Jane wears are so lovely.

And has a score, by John Barry, ever been more romantic? Perfectly enhances the romanticism of the story.

Superman Christopher Reeve is all boyish charm and wonder; when he walks towards Jane by the lake and she says "Are you the one?" Well, it takes your breath they are so gorgeous.

Any romantic can't help but have a lump in the throat at the lovely ending - white on white - no beginning and no end - they are together "Somewhere In Time." 9/10

OK time-traveling romance

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 21 March 2015]

Richard Collier (Christopher Reeve) is approached at his party by an unknown old lady who asks him to "Come back to me" and leaves him a pocket watch. Years later, he returns to the same hotel and discovers that she's Elise McKenna (Jane Seymour), a famous stage actress from long ago. He finds some of her effects including a book from Dr. Gerard Finney about self-hypnosis time travel. After much effort, he travels back to 1912 and tracks down Elise. They have an electric connection as her manager William Robinson (Christopher Plummer) tries to keep them apart.

It's a romance but Reeve and Seymour are not together for most of the movie. It takes almost half of the movie before the two actors actually have a scene together. It's a very long build and I'm not convinced why he's so taken with her. It's almost a given as love at first sight for both characters without much explanation. I guess they are star-crossed lovers but the characters are a little older than Romeo and Juliet. Reeve with his leading man looks easily keeps the time-traveling romance humming. Seymour is lovely. Plummer is a fine villain. The drama is never very thrilling. It has a sweet poignant melodramatic sentimentality which serves it well in the end.

A materpiece!!!!

[rikbattaglia · 10/10 · 6 May 2017]

What an amazing perfect movie! Every decade there are a handful if films that make movie watching a true experience that lasts the rest of our lives! This is one of those precious masterpieces! A perfect 10! Not only for romantics, but for the entire human race! I watch it everyyear now and every time it heals your heart and soul!

Somewhere, some time...a Timeless Love Story

[Bogmeister · 7/10 · 16 January 2006]

I was rather young when I first saw this film; I found it mildly interesting and, being a science fiction fan, was drawn to the time travel aspect. I found it a bit slow and uneventful. As one grows older, priorities change, certain matters not considered when younger begin to take precedence. When I watch this film now, I find the time travel angle plays out differently for me; yes, it's still an interesting take on how to travel backwards in time, without machinery (as in "The Time Machine" - all versions). But, I realize now the entire focus of the story is on the mystical depiction of timeless love surfacing for the two main characters, played by Reeve and Seymour. It's a romance of the most old-fashioned kind, bridging decades, and enhanced by the whole premise of traveling further to achieve that romantic connection than most would ever dream of.

Obviously, the task for Reeve's character, that of making the connection, appears simply impossible. We've all read stories or seen movies about some character traveling over half a continent or even half the world to make such a connection. We root for them, of course - for them to beat the odds. The odds here are seemingly insurmountable: not traveling across land, but time itself. Well, he makes it; it's an incredible feat. And he pursues his dream, an exotic, to say the least, fantastic dream. She's worth it: Seymour is truly beautiful in this film, and gets more so with each viewing. Just her photo portrait in this story manages to capture a serene, mysterious type of beauty. She's touched with a melancholy sadness and Reeve is there to balm her wound. Writer Richard Matheson knows how to write good stories, romance included, and didn't need to fall back on contrived side plots to 'energize' the script, as is often the case nowadays. It's a straightforward, unfussy story, the kind they don't produce anymore.

My all-time favorite movie.

[CGMCC · 10/10 · 3 November 2004]

There are those few movies that make you sit back and just be amazed at the artistic excellence you've just seen. Citizen Kane, Casablanca, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Wars, The Godfather, Ben Hur, and The Lord of the Rings trilogy are a few of these. Somewhere In Time is not a blockbuster actioner, but is perhaps the finest fantasy love story ever made.

The cast is perfect. Christopher Reeve is extremely believable. Jane Seymour is gorgeous as the young actress, as is Teresa Wright as her older self. Christopher Plummer is great as Elise McKenna's manager, and Bill Erwin affords himself fine as Arthur. The setting, music, story, and acting are all top notch! We are slowly drawn (and it's just great to take one's time to get involved) into this mysterious romance as the paradox pair of the watch and the time travel gets our hero to "come back to me."

Simply Superb! If you are one of the very few who has not seen this movie, please get it and watch it one time. I've seen it at least 10 times and enjoy it as much each time.

Richard Matheson

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 1 June 2015]

A Chicago playwright (Christopher Reeve) uses self-hypnosis to find the actress (Jane Seymour) whose vintage portrait hangs in the Grand Hotel of Mackinaw.

This was not a film I had heard much about. Okay, really nothing about. And that is a shame, because Richard Matheson is one of the greatest all-time fantastic film writers. He is better known for horror ("I Am Legend"), but successfully manages a time-traveling romance here. How many time-traveling romances exist? I can only think of one other, "The Lake House", which is very different and hardly comparable.

The whole premise is a bit weird but it is also interesting and thought-provoking. Just imagine how many loops the watch must take -- an infinite amount. And how does it all work? Of course, we are not supposed to think about the logic, but it is pretty interesting!

A forgotten film that deserves to be revisited, even with all its flaws.

[filipemanuelneto · 4/10 · 22 October 2023]

Personally, I liked this film. It's one of those films that fell into oblivion very quickly, which doesn't seem fair to me: the film is much better than many more expensive and publicized productions, even though it has serious problems, which I'll talk about. Perhaps very few, besides the producers and cast, really believed in it: it didn't receive much attention from studios and theaters, it was a huge success in Asia but was ridiculed in the USA, while Europe seems to have ignored it.

The film has a very good, but small, cast: Christopher Reeve was still reaping the rewards of the success of "Superman", but that didn't stop him from putting in a lot of effort into this smaller work. The actor is a solid protagonist, and his work is one of the levers that moves the film forward and gives it quality. Next to him, we see the elegant Jane Seymour, still quite young, in a performance full of dignity and where she establishes excellent chemistry with Reeve. Christopher Plummer was less fortunate: the actor, whose credits and talent are beyond doubt, received a cliché and quite artificial character because the villain was necessary to the plot anyway, and had to be someone sufficiently worthy of our disdain.

This leads us to talk about the script, which has its merits and also many demerits: the story is based on a somewhat mystical passion between Richard Collier, a modern-day playwright, and Elise McKenna, a young and successful actress from the past. Right at the beginning of the film they meet when she, already elderly, gives him a watch and says a few short and mysterious words to him. Eight years later, he becomes fascinated by a young woman, portrayed in 1912 in a room in an old hotel, discovering her identity. He then decides to try self-hypnosis to go back in time and find her.

The script thus creates a kind of love at first sight, in which the object of passion is a photograph of someone who has long since passed away and who you have never met. Just the idea itself seems bizarre, and things don't get better when we introduce time travel and the notions of regression and self-hypnosis, which only the "new age" crowd will really value in some way. Perhaps it would have been preferable to travel through "traditional" time through some machine, portal or "wormhole".

Technically, the film shines due to the choice of filming location (the hotel still exists and can be visited) and the design of the sets and costumes, full of details and well made, worthy of the Oscar nomination in 1981. The editing is quite regular, and the film unfolds without haste, but also without dull moments. The cinematography comes in joyful warm colors and the soundtrack is dominated by two distinct, but by no means incompatible, tonics: the excellent Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini Op. 43, by Rachmaninoff, and a hypnotic and striking melody composed by John Barry.

Somewhere In Time Christopher Reeves Is Watching This....

[FloatingOpera7 · 10/10 · 16 May 2006]

Somewhere In Time (1980): Starring Christopher Reeve, Jane Seymour, Christopher Plummer, Susan French, Jon Alvin, Edra Gale, Patt Billingsley, Teresa Wright, Bill Erwin George Voskovec, William H. Macy....Director Jeannot Szwarc, Screenplay Richard Matheson, Based On The Novel By Richard Matheson.

"The man of my dreams has almost faded now. The one I have created in my mind. The sort of man each woman dreams of, in the deepest and most secret reaches of her heart. I can almost see him now before me. What would I say to him if he were really here? "Forgive me. I have never known this feeling. I have lived without it all my life. Is it any wonder, then, I failed to recognize you? You, who brought it to me for the first time. Is there any way that I can tell you how my life has changed? Any way at all to let you know what sweetness you have given me? There is so much to say. I cannot find the words. Except for these: I love you".

Released in 1980, director Jeanot Szwarc's film adaptation of Richard Matheson's novel is a breathtaking, emotionally stirring romantic love story with a sci-fi twist: the lovers are from different time periods: he from the 1972 and she from 1912. Initially a failure at the box office (possibly because Christopher Reeves was preferred to be seen as Superman, this film was only one of his films that year, the other being Super Man Part 2 and because it was difficult to adapt the complex, sci-fi romance into a film without sacrificing some logic, plot consistency and other aspects) it soon acquired a huge fan base. Chris Reeves takes off his Superman outfit and dons an Edwardian gentleman's suite in the role of playwright Richard Collier, who becomes obscessed with the enigmatic turn-of-the century actress Elise McKenna, whose haunting portrait is hung on the Grand Hotel's historic room. After the premiere of his 1970's Vietnam play "Too Much Spring", an elderly woman (Susan French) hands him a watch, looks him in the eye like she's known him all her life and says: "Come back to me". This is what he does when he wills himself back to 1912 (the year Titanic sank) to the Grand Hotel where a young Elise (Jane Seymour in a great role) is performing a play. Seymour's portrayal of this character is effortless, channeling the spirit of the actual 19th century actress that inspired the character of Elise Maude Addams. Seymour looks gorgeous in every one of her costumes and acts the part of a woman who rejects a great career in acting for love, quite well. Christopher Plummer (Sound Of Music), older though he is, is terrific as William Fawcett Robinson, Elise's Svengali, imperious and controlling theater manager, determined to make her a big star and has a professional relationship with her but who deep down, loves her but loses to the young newcomer. In this aspect, this film mirrors 1948's "The Red Shoes" but with its time/memories/love theme and similar time period also resembles 1997's "Titanic". Look for William H. Macy in the minor role of a theater critic. I can see how when it was released in 1980, it was considered a bit of a flop. There are plot holes due to the fact a lot of the novel's material was omitted from the film. There is the general confusion with the "time travel" aspect. Collier is a man of the 70's and then travels to 1912, but Elise had been told by her manager that he'd come and take her away, but she is also an old lady in the 70's, magically drawing him to "come back to her" through whatever she read in an old time travel book. Truthfully, the romance happens much too quickly and is over far too quickly. The dialog is nothing Oscar worthy, so contrived and stilted, the characters are not too well-developed but what makes this film so enjoyable is the romantic escapism. The audience is required to suspend disbelief. There is genuine chemistry between Reeves and Seymour. It's refreshing to see Christopher Reeves in a non-Superman performance. Many consider THIS performance as a romantic playwright to be his best role. He himself was very proud of this performance. This is a maudlin, escapist romantic movie, even if short, and the cinematography is exquisite, resembling an Impressionist painting and evoking a romanticized past. The hotel is luxurious and Victorian and the costumes and music are striking. Especially spiritual are such scenes as when Reeves first looks at Elise's portrait in the History Gallery of the Hotel, a portrait cast in natural sunlight. Rachmaninoff's "Rhapsody On A Theme of Paganini 18th Variation Andante Cantabile" features prominently and serves as the love theme. All romantics at heart and lovers of a good romance will love this movie. It is still one of those underrated love stories that deserve more recognition. It was Christopher Reeve's favorite film and perhaps he is still watching it in Heaven.