The Time Traveler's Wife (2009) Reviews

• It's about life long metaphors, not the science.

  snickers7972009-08-14

  Something I often find bothersome in 'time travel fiction' is that there is usually a large chunk of the storytelling dedicated to the tedium of explaining 'how' time travel works, particularly when time travel is merely a device to aid the storytelling. We don't really need to know the science behind it because, simply put, science can neither logically explain its paradoxical nature, nor prove or dispute its possibility. "The Time Traveler's Wife" never makes pretenses to the science behind it, rather it centers its focus on the story. At the heart of this film is a love story and the complexities that people bring to their relationships. What I liked most was its metaphorical allusion to the distance in relationships and how the important people in our lives stay with us even after they are gone. The scenes between Henry and young Clare were especially moving because they took literally the notion of feeling like you have known someone your whole life. It's kind of like when you share stories from your past with friends and significant others, retelling them time and again until your experiences are indistinguishable from theirs, except in the case of Henry and Clare, the experiences are real if not linear. Just go and watch it. Decide for yourself if you like it. Just don't dwell too much on the technicalities. After all, Scientific Theorists have been slamming their heads against the wall on the matter of time travel for centuries. Take the story for what it is and enjoy the ride.

  More

• Not The Book, But A Great Movie

  audiojoe992009-08-15

  8 times and counting. That's how many times I've read the book. The episodic structure of the novel is such that it's easy to dip in and out of, even if you're reading other things. You can quite easily spend an hour or a day with Henry and Claire whenever you wish. When I found out that they were making a movie of the book, my initial reaction was how? There's far too much to cram into a two hour movie. Surely they'd be better making a mini- series? The fact is, that they leave a lot of things out of the movie. Characters who you'd assume would be quite important are given very little screen time, or excised completely. Also, the ending of the novel isn't used, only the spirit of the ending. The book's ending was filmed, however, so maybe it'll turn up as a DVD extra for all the purists out there. You know what though? The movie is great. It's perfectly cast, and instead of concentrating on every minute detail that made the book a joy to read, it concentrates solely on the boy- meets-girl-out-of-time concept, and plays out a love story over an evening-sized slice of time. Lots of people have complained that their favourite part from the book isn't in it (Rachel's disastrous first date with another man and Henry's revenge for it, The Gomez situation, Ingrid, Christmas at Meadowlark etc) but really, there is enough in this movie to sustain it and to give any newcomers to the story a decent enough reason to run off and read the book to fill in the blanks. Those people especially are in for a treat, as while the movie does have it's moments of high drama, there is a noticeable lack of darkness, which the book has in spades. Also kudos must go to Bruce Joel Rubin for the writing of a brand new scene featuring a time travelling Henry and his mother on a subway train, which slotted in perfectly to the TTW world. Rachel McAdams makes a stunning Claire, her scenes revolving around the pregnancy issues they have are completely believable and heartfelt. Early reports suggested Eric Bana wasn't up to snuff in his performance of Henry. I can only assume those reviewers had been watching a very rough cut, as I thought he was fantastic. Special mention also to Arliss Howard as Henry's dad, and Stephen Tobolowsky as Kendrick, who both go to demonstrate how scenes can be stolen with very limited screen time. For everyone who's going in expecting the book, lower your expectations. It isn't the book. What it is, is a condensed version of the main love story from the book, played out perfectly with respect for the text. I enjoyed the movie immensely, and am looking forward to seeing it again. If I want the book, I'll read the book. My imagination is perfectly capable of providing me with the visuals I need. However, from now on, if I want to spend the evening with the DeTambles and let someone else do the work, I'll be watching the movie.

  More

• Great adaptation, great casting, great romance.

  lyds-22009-08-14

  I was a massive fan of the book and had been following the production of this movie for a long time anticipating the release date. I had set my expectations pretty low so as to not be disappointed and decided to just enjoy the film for what it was. I was overjoyed by how true to the book the film stayed, only varying in a few unimportant places, the film dared to be as heart breaking and sad as the book and did not feel the need to justify the logistics of the time travel instead choosing to summarise it in the first scene.(People who feel this was not explained do not have the imagination needed to fully enjoy this film). The ageing of Eric Bana's character was seamless and it was easy to tell whether he was a younger or older version of Henry and Rachel McAdams brought out the inner frustrations of Claire's character with a great sensitivity showing the difficulties of the relationship. Overall, this film was not a let down to a lover of the book, I enjoyed it as an extension of the story of Henry and Claire and found the emotions real and well developed. A definite must-see for all fans and those who haven't read the book but who just enjoy a good love story!

  More

• Nicholas Sparks channels Rod Serling

  J_Trex2009-09-02

  This was much better than expected. The premise seemed far-fetched, to put it mildly. But the movie worked on a number of different levels based on the screenplay, directing, beautiful cinematography, and acting, not just of the always captivating Rachel McAdams, but also the much underrated Eric Bana as the co-lead, and the rest of the supporting cast. The basic plot is Eric Bana (Henry) is afflicted with being involuntarily sent through time. He has no control about the time or places where he is sent. At some point, he meets with Rachel McAdams (Clare), drops in and out of her life, they fall in love and marry. However, as one can easily imagine, the downsides of involuntary time travel takes its toll. The movie could have easily have spun out of control and ended up a total mess, but the movie actually works quite nicely. The plot could be a collaborative effort of the late Rod Serling (of Twilight Zone fame) with bizarre, science fiction type plots and Nicholas Sparks, the author of countless sticky sweet love stories (i.e. – "The Notebook"). I liked this movie, but I realize this might not be everybody's cup of tea. I would say stick with it & you'll be glad you didn't give up & go see "Halloween II" across the hall (as I was tempted to do). I've seen them both. Believe me when I say "Time Traveler" is the better of the two.

  More

• A magical tale that brings a classical theme back to the big screen.

  lagergren1682009-08-18

  "The Time Traveler's Wife" is a heart-warming love story, and will keep you entertained until the final credits appear. The performances are superb, the pacing is fantastic, and the emotional sensation you experience is easily worth the price of admission. I recommend anyone looking for a unique love story to see this film. Paying homage to memorable classic such as; "Somewhere in Time" and "It's a Wonderful Life,"it will easily be something that should find a home in your living room shelves. It emits a cinematic glow that hasn't been seen in years while cleverly conveying an educational message; "Never let go of the one you love, and cherish him/her always." Don't let this sparkling gem pass you by...

  More