Needle in a Timestack

“Needle in a Timestack” is based on a short story by the famous Science Fiction author Robert Silverberg, first published in the pages of the June 1983 issue of Playboy. Oddly enough, almost two decades earlier he published a collection of short stories of the same name, which, however, had no other connection with it. For some people, especially those who are pushed by the film adaptation of John Ridley to search for the source material, it may seem a little confusing, although it makes a little sense when you look at the nature of the story. It turns out that this literary curiosity turns out to be much more interesting than the finished Film, which takes an undeniably interesting premise and does not use it well.

The premise, I assure you, is a Doozy and it’s about our old friend, time travel. In the not so distant future, this is not only a possibility, but it is a commodity to serve as a new benefit for the rich who spend huge amounts of money to “travel back in time” to a point in their past and relive their most important memories. Of course, all this has a hook in the form of our other old friend, the “butterfly effect — all changes, no matter how tiny, which is made during a visit in the past, can have unintended wave effects on the present day, not only for the trips themselves, but also for those in their lives, they change in some way from small to deep, after a “Phase”.”There are all kinds of rules and laws that prohibit tourists from doing such things, but quite often it happens that a cottage industry is developing where people can lock valuable souvenirs in a time capsule (for a high fee, hoping to rebuild them after an unconscious Phase.

But what would happen if someone decided to say “nuts” to the terms and conditions they signed and chose to use time travel for more evil purposes? This is what The architect Nick Mikkelsen (Leslie Odom Jr.) with him and his wife, the photographer Janine (Cynthia Erivo). With the faint memories you can remember in the gap between your previous time line and your new time line, you have found that you have suffered an unfortunate turn of the Phase three times in the past year. And although the results were not catastrophic (unless you are a dog lover like Nick), there is always a risk that someone else will come and erase not only his current life, but also all the memories they have of each other.

What kind of monster would do such a thing? Nick has a really good idea that the guy behind it is Tommy Hambleton (Orlando Bloom), a now-alienated friend from college who’s had enough success to afford an outing whenever he wants. He is also Janine’s Ex-husband and Nick is convinced that he will return to their shared past to change things so that Janine stays with him. Inexplicably, although Janine accepts that it is probably her Ex, she insists that Nick not report it to the police, because although he has probably ruined her life on three different occasions that you know, she is convinced that he will not get things done. Inevitably, Nick and Janine are hit by another Phase and when it’s all over, the new timeline has actually married Janine to Tommy, while Nick is now married to his former college Flame Alex (Frieda Pinto). Despite a seemingly happy relationship with Alex, Nick nevertheless has the agonizing feeling that something is not quite right, and he is increasingly passion with the idea that there is someone out there who is really destined for him, even if he has no real memory of who he might be, and is trying to come up with a Plan to put things in order.

The problem with many narratives that involve time travel is that they seem fascinating on the surface, but tend to crumble as soon as they start thinking about all the different paradoxes and riddles. Anyone who tries such a story should tell it as neatly and effectively as possible, so as not to inspire these mood-finishing questions, at least to the end. Well, Silverberg’s story may not make a lot of sense in the recount – it never explains how a process that can escalate the lives of so many undoubtfuling people could have been so widespread-but it is told in such a concise way that readers can easily ignore the hiccups when reading Stephen King’s Interview. In an ideal world, the story could have served as an ideal episode for something like “The Twilight Zone” or “Black Mirror,” compact shows that deal with the kind of fantasy concepts used here.

Although Ridley’s adaptation meets all the important beats of the original story, it has been expanded to fill a feature-length runtime, and that’s where the Movie stumbles. What was once a strong story of Technology that went wild turned into a strange mixture of “Eternal Sunshine of THE Spotless Mind” and “Made in Heaven” (this Alan Rudolph curiosity from 1987, in which two souls meet and fall in love in heaven, and then 30 years to find each other on earth, with no tangible memories of each Other), although it lacks the emotional and visual power of the former, as well as the crazy romanticism of the latter. The problem is that none of the characters here are particularly interesting, despite the undeniably committed actors (Erivo and Pinto are especially wasted), and since we do not care about them, it is difficult to arouse much interest in what is happening to them. The mind then wanders to those annoying questions about the whole yellowing concept and the whole house of cards collapses.

This is especially frustrating, because it’s easy to imagine a more convincing Version, which completely examines the ideas that have been put in the background here. Instead, “Needle in a Timestack” is more like the kind of low-quality, low-stakes romantic fantasy that all too often feels like a failed attempt to get through a draft. Who knows, maybe someday yellowing and Phasing become real things and someone can mess with the timelines long enough to turn “Needle in a Timestack” into a better Movie.