Movie Review: The Time Traveler's Wife (2009)
For a romantic drama I found the melodrama to be tolerable
Photo: New Line Cinema
Yes, I found some enjoyment in The Time Traveler's Wife. No, I didn't mind the fact it depended on my acceptance of a little girl's (slightly creepy) friendship with a naked man that suddenly appears in the woods only to disappear seconds later. After all, it's called The Time Traveler's Wife and considering a little girl's love for the mysterious naked man from the woods is the only real hurdle I had to jump over (outside of time travel of course), I found myself accepting the film's premise, the story it served and by the time it came to an end I got caught up in the romance. Shame on me, I know, but it's the truth.
The cast includes Eric Bana, Rachel McAdams, Ron Livingston and Arliss Howard. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"The Time Traveler's Wife" is a New Line Cinema release, directed by Robert Schwentke and is rated PG-13 for thematic elements, brief disturbing images, nudity and sexuality. The running time is 1 hour 47 minutes.
The Time Traveler's Wife does have its problems, first of which is the up and down acting of Bana and McAdams. Whenever Bana is acting opposite a younger Clare (Brooklynn Proulx) his performance seems stunted and his words don't come off as natural adding slightly to the creepy factor. If Bana doesn't seem comfortable with the scene, how can we? McAdams' performance is equally unbalanced, while at times tender, other times she's just going through the motions. However, when necessary, the two leads pull it together and manage to create a believable relationship that never wallows too deep in the melodrama.
Even the script by Bruce Joel Rubin (Ghost) never gets too sappy, which is often the demise of a romantic drama of this ilk – I point to The Notebook as the pinnacle romantic disaster. The story relies very little on convincing you of the science of it all. Henry can travel through time… deal with it. After all, if the film is wasting its time trying to explain the science behind Henry's ability to time travel the movie doesn't stand a chance. Therefore, if you are wondering how he does it, the answer is simple: He just can.
The story establishes the rules immediately and they're quite easy to understand; Henry spontaneously travels through time and whenever he gets to where he's going a pile of clothes will be found where he was and he will be naked wherever he arrives. What happens next is a mad dash of thievery, breaking-and-entering and 100-yard sprints. Director Robert Schwentke's only concern is making sure the audience isn't too worried with how Henry manages to pull all this off, and is instead thinking about Clare back home, not knowing when her husband will rematerialize? After all, this is The Time Traveler's Wife, not The Time Traveling Husband.
Of course, I couldn't help but wonder how Henry could manage to stay so upbeat and enthused when any minute he could be in an alleyway fighting for his life. But that's why this film isn't getting an "A" from me. There does come a point where the fact his love for Clare was just not enough to convince me he can push aside everything that happens to him and what he's seen and knows and vice-versa. This is also why I don't tend to see too many movies of this kind and was happy this one didn't fully disappoint.
While it's not a movie that will have you shouting from the rooftops, you'd be hard-pressed to hate this movie with any real passion. The film's third act is very well done and the fact it completely accepts that Henry can travel through time with very little explanation allows the audience to do so as well, just in time to get something out of what the film has to offer.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 7 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
I'm really looking forward to this film because I really enjoyed the book – I mean seriously enjoyed it. It's one of the only books that I have immediately restarted again from the beginning for a second read as soon as I have finished the last page.
i've recently rebought the book – no idea where the original copy disappeared to as it was passed around that many people to spread the brilliance – so will be reading it again before watching the movie.
I just hope it stays close to the book. I'm already a little annoyed at the trailer as it gives away a few things from the book that I don't think should be given away, and that leads me to wonder if they cover a key section of the book in the film or not – I wont mention what part as it could be considered a spoiler for those that are watching the film without reading the book (shame on you).
Fingers crossed it doesn't disappoint too much.
FROM BRAD: I had to remove a spoiler from your post which was intentionally not mentioned in the review.
@CJay: I completely understand your enthusiasm as I enjoyed this book greatly as well. I was such a sad story and in the end of the book you really felt connected to what Clare was feeling and how Henry's only goal was to protect his family at any cost.
I am very reluctant to watch this movie because I'm not a huge fan of Bana's bland acting, but if Ryan Gosling was in this, I'd watch the midnight showing. But alas he's not. So I'm going to save myself the heartbreak of watching one of my favorite books be a victim of a bad adaptation and bad acting as Brad alluded to.
It's a harsh review, but a thorough one. After all, if you cannot enjoy the movie without even reading the book, how can you expect to enjoy it after you've read it. Thanks, Brad.
Did you guys see McAdams on the Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart? She spoiled the entire movie/book haha. She's gonna be in so much trouble…
@Anonymous' Friend: Yeah, I did see that. It was bizarre. Was she going for a last ditch effort to get people into the theatres? She came off as dim witted and flightly…two traits that don't apply to successful actresses as a rule, no matter what their public persona is.
I'm a fan of good science fiction. But this looks like a romance with a twist. I'm not intrigued. I'm not opposed to romance thrown into a plot, but am not a fan of it being the message.
(Yes, indeed, "The Notebook" was, "…the pinnacle romantic disaster."
@Patricia: Well I think you should read the book despite McAdams' nuttiness and the movie's inevitable doom. Audrey Niffeneger, I think, created one of the most poignant and heartfelt novels about love and being parted from the love of your life.
@Anonymous' Friend: Perhaps I should read the book. The question is, does its charm and poignancy translate into the film?
Well, on another site I discovered I wasn't alone in my creepy feeling about this book. It is like she is using us, the buyers of her story, to be her group therapy. She feels she was exposed as a child to adult sexuality which she barely avoids terming abuse and I felt she dirties me. I didn't like it. It is not a love story. It's like she got decades of therapy and lots of $$ but still felt (like Ivana Trump) that she had to get even even though she was paid for silence. The book is just exactly that; her ego getting even even though the court settlement or family agreement or whatever called for her to keep it quiet. Its sick and I just wonder how much money she'll feel is due her.
She was clever enough to combine elements of touchy-feely but that is not what she wrote the book for; its for her to claim she is abiding by the agreement but demonstrating she is smart enough to evade the rules. Sick.