BY LARRY CARROLL | Imagine the pressure of directing your first feature film - dealing with the budgets, the egos, the shooting schedules and the studio executives (not to mention the critics waiting to rip your work apart). Now, pretend that the film you're making is a high-financed adaptation of a classic novel that generations of science fiction fans have embraced; they are dying to nitpick you to death for even the tiniest change in their sacred scripture. Finally, imagine that your own great-grandfather wrote the work you are translating. If you were to mess this up, your entire family might disown you! Oh, and did I mention that your project also happens to have already been made once (by director George Pal in 1960), into a version that is widely considered to be a classic?

Simon Wells is a courageous guy. Not only did he agree to take on a project like this, but he also changed a great deal of the material from the previous models. Now Wells, a direct descendant of the legendary writer H.G. Wells, makes his live-action directorial debut with "The Time Machine". Some would say that the deck was stacked against him before he shot the first foot of film. I say, for a guy with all these pressures, he turned out a heck of a movie.

Like the novel and the previous film, Simon Wells' "The Time Machine" tells the tale of a scientist from 1899 that develops a machine which allows humans to cross the fourth dimension. Also, like in the other adaptations, our time traveler goes forward in time, first briefly, then all the way to the year 802,701. There he finds that the world has undergone some dramatic transformations that have resulted in the development of two species, the hunted (Eloi) and the hunters (Morlocks).

And that's pretty much where the similarities end. In this version, the time traveler is named Alexander Hartdegen (he was nameless in the book, George in the original film) and is played by Guy Pearce ("Memento"). Whereas previous versions left his motivation to the intrinsic human curiosity to see what time travel would be like, this film creates a fiancee for Alexander whose murder drives his mission. There are many other changes as well, some of which stay true to the 1960 film, others to the novel, but it is the original ideas which seem to prevail the majority of the time.

And this is the way it should be. Credit Wells for taking some risks - a lesser director would have been content to simply take the safe way out and remake either of the classic versions previously produced. I'm not saying that every one of Wells' new slants on the story works - but there is a sense of unpredictability and innovativeness that is rare in this age of regurgitated film material.

While comparisons are inevitable, if you go into the 2002 film willing to look at it on its own merits, you will be rewarded. Pearce is perfectly cast as an intelligent, heartbroken man who is forced to become an action hero. The special effects are very well done, particularly in an eye-candy sequence involving the destruction of the moon. Irish singer Samantha Mumba (Mara), making her feature film debut, not only looks appropriate as an advanced version of humanity, but also holds her own as an actress. Jeremy Irons (The Uber-Morlock), as always, brings dignity and intelligence to his role, and Orlando Jones does a fine job as a futuristic interactive encyclopedia named Vox.

The design of the Morlocks, created by Stan Winston, is amazing - all hair and brute strength, they are truly terrifying creatures. Wells and Winston took the basic constructs of the creatures from the 1960 film and improved upon them dramatically, particularly in the sequences where they pop out of the ground and hunt the Eloi. Using blow darts, their speed and sheer strength, the Eloi are hardly a match for these monsters.

Equally amazing are the homes of the Eloi; bamboo huts perched on the side of a cliff hundreds of feet above ground. The sets are not only beautiful, but also appropriate. The Eloi were always portrayed up until now as mindless cattle, too dim to realize that helping each other was in their own best interests. Wells has decided to give his Eloi more intelligence, which not only makes sense because they are descendants of humans, but it also levels the playing field to some degree. It follows that the Eloi would create an adapted, albeit primitive, way to stay out of the reach of their oppressors.

Then we come to the vessel for which the film is titled. As with the Eloi homes, the set design is simultaneously breathtaking and simplistic. While doffing the cap to the chair used in Pal's version, the plans for this one make it look much more intricate and complex, like you would imagine a time machine to be. Instead of it being a Santa Claus sled, this machine is propped up on legs that rise and suspend it in mid-air. Gone are the three flashing lightbulbs (what were those things supposed to indicate anyway?) from the original film, but Wells kept the handcrafted chair and the crystal gearshift.

Unfortunately, the film does have some flaws to it. Many of these come hand in hand with the new concepts that this version presents. Take, for example, the notion that Alexander created his machine to try to save his fiancee from her tragic death. In the film, he goes back and saves her; only to come to the conclusion that fate cannot be changed. Why does he give up so easily? What would happen, for instance, if he took her onto the time machine with him and then took her past the time when she died? Certainly anyone as heartbroken (and intelligent) as he would spend as much time as it takes to find a solution.

Then there's the spotty pacing of the film. When Alexander reaches the future, and discovers the situation that the Eloi are in, it just seems to imply that some sort of large-scale battle will take place. While the Uber-Morlock might be a half-decent adversary, the Morlocks are far too easy for Alexander to overcome. By the time the film has built to what you think will be its big showdown, the credits are starting to roll.

Then there's the conclusion, which I will not reveal, but will say that it's not half as satisfying as the endings in either of the previous versions. The ending in the novel was a downer, to be sure, but it was appropriate and would make for a terrific final shot in a film. The George Pal one was much more "Hollywood", but it was still appropriate and left some ambiguity in its question, '"Which books would you take with you to start a new society?"

They say that ignorance is bliss, and I suppose that if you were unaware of the other two versions of "The Time Machine", you'd enjoy the 2002 update more. But whether you have something to compare it to or if you can let the film stand on its own merits, you'll find that, sitting in that chair alongside Alexander Hartdegen, you're going to have a great journey.

GRADE: B