Customer Reviews

The Time Traveler's Wife

5 star:		(67)
4 star:		(34)
3 star:		(20)
2 star:		(15)
1 star:		(21)

 

 

THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE is a diversion. At times what works well in a novel doesn't translate to the screen: the magic of the reader's imagination can be more powerful than the visualization of a screenwriter and director. Such is the case of Audrey Niffenegger's novel - an escape into a world of the unknown (time traveling) that played well on the page largely due to the writing skill of the author. Bruce Joel Rubin's screenplay makes a mighty attempt to make visual the imaginary magic of the novel and thanks to CGI it pulls off the rather strange effects of appearing and disappearing of a time traveler. Robert Schwentke directs with a hefty dose of saccharine though, making what could have been a delicate story somewhat lugubrious.

Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana) has the genetic code that allows him to travel backward and forward in time - a trait that requires a certain degree of acceptance on the part of the audience. We see Henry as a child, as a young man who meets a girl who will on a different 'trip' be a woman Clare Abshire (Rachel McAdams), and witness a bizarre courtship between a couple whose match seems made in heaven.... Along the way Clare's friends (Jane McLean as Charisse and Ron Livingston as a vastly different Gomez than in the novel) figure into the quasi-normal relationship/marriage that takes place. The tale can be confusing if the viewer is not willing to enter the realm of 'possible' and the main guide of the film seems to focus on the fact that whenever Henry time travels, he ends up in his new destination naked (there are many scenes of Eric Bana just searching for clothes). Of course the film can't have a logical ending, but the ending selected, corny though it is, fits the story. Lots of sugar to swallow here, but if you're in a Valentine mood it is a pleasant diversion. Grady Harp, February 10

I thought this was a great love story. Obviously you had to accept Time Travel as an affliction like any other debilitating condition because that is how it is portrayed in this movie. But the love shown between the main characters transcended the actual affliction. The movie was about a love so great that for the two to experience it even if for a short time was worth the sadness that later occurs. I thought both actors portrayed the deep love of the characters quite well. For those that have never seen or had that type of love in their life it can be hard to imagine and accept.

If you do not like deep love stories then skip the movie. If you cannot accept or overlook the time travel metaphor then skip the movie. If you nitpick about every minor detail requiring that they be 100% correct then skip this movie. If on the other hand, you want to see what true love is, you might like this movie. If you like What If movies with love as a central theme then you might like this movie.

I saw this movie 2 days after I finished reading the book. Going into this I knew that there would be many things that would be changed or left out due to the book being almost 600 pages and the movie was 107 minutes. I had a realistic expectation about the movie - I have learned from past disappointments.

Henry DeTamble is played by Eric Bana and Clare Abshire is played by Rachel McAdams. Both actors looked a lot like what I pictured the characters to look like in my head. I also think that they had amazing chemistry together. I also LOVED the little girl that played Clare (age 6) when she first meets Henry - she was great.

My feelings for this moving are slightly above average - the parts that were included from the book were done very well. They stuck pretty close to the events of the book but left out a lot - which made my boyfriend, who hasn't read the book, ask a lot of questions about the plot holes. I think if you had read the book before seeing the movie it would be easier to follow what was happening. I had been wondering how they would show Henry evaporating from one time and appearing in another - I think they did an AWESOME job at this - some amazing CG. Beautifully rendered.

For anyone who has read the book - the ending is not the same. It evokes similar emotion - and those who have not read the book, have told me they loved the ending. I was a little disappointed because I loved the book ending.

Overall, I would give this 3.5/4 stars. I would still watch it again!

In Chicago, the special collections librarian Henry DeTamble has a genetic anomaly that allows him to travel in time; however, he is not able to control the moment or the destiny of his voyages. When the stranger Clare Abshire meets him in the library, she invites him to have dinner with her in his favorite restaurant Beau Thai where she confesses that she has been in love with him since she was six years old. Henry leans that he had visited her many times in the real state of her parents and he falls in love with her. Sooner they get married, but the life of Clare becomes troubled with the successive unexpected travels of her beloved husband. 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. Just enjoy the movie for what it is.

I absolutely loved this and it wasn't hard to follow as i have seen others say, If you can follow butterfly effect which is 10times worse you will have no problem with this movie. It is very sad in parts with what Claire goes through and how it ends with Henry.... But I'm so glad I got to own it because it really touches you the way a love story should and by the end you can just feel how much Clarie really loved Henry.

My wife wanted to see it but I really didn't want to because of the title of the movie and because of the previews. I gave in and we watched it together . . . I absolutely loved it. I was hooked from the very opening scene in the car where Henry visits himself. I realize and agree that it does break some of the "rules" for time-traveling for sci-fi fans. I am a big sci-fi fan and it really didn't bother me that much. This movie is not really designed to be a sci-fi movie; it just introduces enough of the sci-fi element to keep you intrigued. The power of emotions of this movie is what makes it work. The actors are excellent and the entire concept of the book/movie is interesting. I can elaborate much more upon the story, but I will choose not to as to prevent any spoilers for anyone who has not seen it or read the book. I actually do have one grievance against the movie. Make it a bit longer and give more plot development. Otherwise, it was great.

You know going in that when your heroine is called "Clare Abshire" and your hero is called "Henry De Tamble" that somebody is playing a name game on the audience. Must have been author Audrey Niffenegger who made up these names, right? I loved the movie and cried real tears at a certain moment towards the end, but I kept thinking, those names have got to mean something!

Finally I thought, they've got to be anagrams, and it didn't take two minutes to cut up little pieces of paper and write C and L and A and R and E, etc., on one set, and then write Henry's name on another set. Instantly I could swap the letters in Clare's name and form that of "Isabel Archer," the heroine of Henry James' 1881 novel THE PORTRAIT OF A LADY, one of my favorite books!

I still have my little scraps of paper for Henry's name, but I am embarrassed to say, I can't make them say anything (except "Tremble Hayden" and that doesn't mean very much!)--now probably fans have already worked out these names and I'm a johnny come lately but, if anyone has the answer could you post it to me please?

I did not read the book and I knew next to nothing about the film plot when sitting down to view this film. But I'd heard the title a thousand times and thought it sounded interesting. I tend to multi-task when I watch films at home so this movie viewing session was not an exception. About 20 minutes into the film I asked my husband if folding laundry was keeping me from getting what was going on. He said that the movie was confusing and laundry folding was not the problem.

Then after a few more naked guy shots I started to follow the plot. Skin shots? Henry, the time traveler, leaves his clothes behind him, landing naked wherever he's sent. And the odd thing is, that wherever he landed, it seems the whole plot point was to find clothes and hope to get back home. And home would find him landing naked and finding the clothes left for him and sometimes being swept away elsewhere, hoping to survive the whole process again. Survival? It's dangerous? Apparently some folks didn't like naked guys stealing their clothes, suddenly appearing in their homes, or the natural elements weren't necessarily friendly, not once did he land on a nude beach.

The time jumping lasted varying bits of time. Sometimes mere minutes passed, other times, weeks. I also struggled with liking the characters enough to suspend disbelief over the fact that Henry was able to hold a job for a portion of the film. Or that his landing, naked, in the woods behind the meadow of his future wife's home, when she was but a wee little lass, was anything less than just creepy-wrong. The marital disputes were a little too frequent and the back and forth future/past/future/present/past visits got tedious.

There were some intriguing moments like the scientific parts and pieces. Henry was born with a genetic flaw that whips him back and forth through his life and he is able to visit himself at different points.

I'm not recommending the movie, but i could see fans of the book wanting to see this film. The film, for me, was not an enticement to read the novel, though.

Henry (Eric Bana) a research library is greeted by a young lady named Clare (Rachel McAdams.) Clare knows Henry. In fact, she has been in love with him all her life. Therefore, Clare knows Henry. However, Henry does not know Claire. Yet Henry knows the Clare knows him and why.

After we dispense with who knows whom and why, after we dispense with how it is possible or improbable. We get to the point this is an extremely complex and intriguing love story without all this sappiness that distracts from a very good viewing experience.

I have had the good luck or misfortune of watching this movie before reading the book. You can see from the pacing of the movie that there was a terrific effort to adapt and include the highlights and the essence of the book to the point that they are duplicates and not trying to just make a movie with the names and places.

I have only seen the Blu-Ray version. They took great pains to describe how wonderful Blu-Ray is before the movie starts. However, there is an appalling lack of DVD goodies or extras like a voiceover by the actors or directors.

Some movies just deserve top billing without having to dissect it to find out why.

"The Time Traveler's Wife" is your typical tear-jerker romance. Think about every Nicholas Sparks adaption you've ever seen or any movie where one of the main characters has a chronic, life-threatening disease. Because essentially, that's what this movie is: the ins and outs of a relationship in which one partner is afflicted with a devasting illness.

Henry, played by Eric Bana, is a special collections librarian who has a unique and devasting illness: he randomly travels through time. He has no control about when or where it happens, or when or where he ends up. Clare, played by Rachel McAdams, is the girl that the future Henry has been visiting since Clare was a little girl. When Clare and Henry finally meet in Henry's present (they've previously met in Clare's past and Henry's future), they begin a typical Hollywood romance complete with tossed sheets and fights that involve one or both parties storming out, only to be brought back togther to make up within five minutes.

That said, without the time traveling, this is yet another Hollywood weepy-romance. The only shock is seeing Eric Bana naked from behind when he pops into the past/present/future. And like every other Hollywood weepy-romance, it is entertaining enough for you to see it once, but not necessarily something you feel compelled to view repeatedly.

My advice: read the book. Audrey Niffeneger has written a story that is not really like this movie at all.