The Time Traveler's Wife (2009)

Review from my wife: It was so compelling and well done, and both my husband and I enjoyed this movie tremendously. The story line was intersting, the characters were really well developed and you really care about them. The acting was excellent, and we found ourselves really pulled in throughout the entire movie.

Contrary to some of the reviews I read, this movie was easy to follow. I don't understand what the problem was. I had never read the book, yet it was completely clear what was going on. I don't get why anyone would have had a problem. Also, there was nothing strange or wrong about the traveller visiting the younger version of his love interest. It was very innocent. One reviewer's mention that there was no plausible explanation for the lead's time travel abilities doesn't make sense to me. There was a very sufficient and even detailed explanation given in the movie. Keep in mind that we're dealing with a fiction scifi story here, and it was plenty adequate. I found I was able to buy into the concept and really immerse myself, and ultimately I enjoyed the story very much.

This is a really fine movie, and I'd recommend that anyone who enjoys scifi, time travel or romance view this.

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

Buy The Time Traveler's Wife (2009) Now

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.

Read Best Reviews of The Time Traveler's Wife (2009) Here

While the story for "The Time Traveler's Wife" is not at all interested in plausibility or logic, it is interested in making an emotional connection with the audience, and so it does. Make no mistake--this adaptation of Audrey Niffenegger's novel is about as preposterous as it gets, telling the story of a man who can go back and forth through time but lacks the ability to control when he goes and for how long he'll be gone. There's no adequate explanation for his condition, and maybe it's for the best; this a love story, after all, not a supernatural commentary on evolution or expanded consciousness. Besides, if you were to stop for a moment and really think about the idea, the inevitable questions will eventually be so numerous that you'll end up with a headache. For this particular story, you'll be much better off just blindly buying into the premise.

Only then will it be possible to appreciate the more engaging aspects of the story, the most obvious being the romance between the time traveler, Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana), and his wife, Clare Abshire (Rachel McAdams). Actually, it would be more accurate to say that sometimes she's his wife--it all depends at what point in time the movie shifts to, and there are many of them. They meet back when she was only six years old and playing alone on her family's vast meadow. From out of nowhere comes a man from the future without any clothes on, and after she gives him his blanket, he tells her that he will officially meet her years later, at which point she will be a college student in a library looking for an art book. You see, during that first encounter, he was older, nearly forty; in the library, he will be younger, say twenty-five or so.

Anyway, as time goes on for Clare, Henry will repeatedly come into and shift out of her life, and they will fall deeply in love and get married. Imagine what this must be like for Clare, never knowing when her husband will appear and disappear out of thin air like a ghost. One second, he's there carrying dishes to the table for dinner, and the next second he's gone, leaving Clare behind to sweep up broken pieces of ceramic. A marriage like this really gives new meaning to the vow, "To have and to hold for all time."

One of the unfortunate side effects of his time travelling is that none of his clothes travel with him, so wherever he goes (whenever, rather), he's forced to steal some by breaking into a store or someone else's home. And at what age will he be when he gets back? One of the film's more clever segments incorporates a fair amount of humor and takes place on their wedding day; a younger version of Henry is getting ready for the ceremony, only to disappear in the bathroom. Fortunately, an older version of Henry arrives just in time, albeit with graying hair. This man disappears after the ceremony, right as Clare's father (Philip Craig) invites them to the dance floor. Fortunately, that's when the younger Henry returns, and even though he was technically there, he apologizes for missing the wedding.

I told you this time travel gimmick was better left unquestioned. Attached to it, however, are emotional issues that are genuinely touching, and this definitely includes Henry and Clare's attempts to have a baby. I will refrain from going into detail here, but here are some questions to think about. Is it reasonable to assume that Henry's condition can be passed along to his child? If so, then is it fair for that child to even be born? There comes a point when he seeks the help of David Kendrick (Steven Tobolowsky), a geneticist, and while the results of his various tests do little to shed light on why Henry is the way he is, he does play a pivotal role in helping him and Clare conceive. Henry, by the way, tells Dr. Kendrick that his condition is known as chronoimpairment, a term Kendrick has not yet coined.

One other emotional issue that serves the story well is the broken relationship between Henry and his father, Richard (Arliss Howard), who hasn't been himself since his wife's untimely death. Henry was only six at the time, but as a time traveler, he continuously goes back to the days before her death and holds brief conversations with her as a stranger. This naturally begs the question of why he can't simply prevent her from dying. This itself begs the question of why, "I've tried, but there's nothing I can do," is the best explanation he has.

Deep human drama runs through this movie, and that's what I found the most compelling. Henry's ability to time travel, however, is conveniently left unexplained. We're only meant to pay attention to the relationship between Henry and Clare, and indeed, we do. The concept is inherently absurd, but the chemistry between the main characters is not; we able to see them up on screen and actually believe that they're in love. That's what's so fascinating about "The Time Traveler's Wife": It's an absorbing drama based on a premise that's impossible to take seriously. How did it achieve this? Much like Henry's condition, it's probably better to not question it and just accept it for what it is.

Want The Time Traveler's Wife (2009) Discount?

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!

Save 33% Off