IMDb user comments for
The Time Traveler's Wife (2009) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 9:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Index

87 comments in total

---

72 out of 85 people found the following comment useful :-
It's about life long metaphors, not the science., 14 August 2009

Author: snickers797 from United States

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.

---

61 out of 75 people found the following comment useful :-
Not The Book, But A Great Movie, 15 August 2009

Author: audiojoe99 from United Kingdom

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.

---

58 out of 77 people found the following comment useful :-
Great adaptation, great casting, great romance., 14 August 2009

Author: lyds-2 from United Kingdom

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!

---

44 out of 58 people found the following comment useful :-
loved it, 13 August 2009

Author: tarotwitch0 from United States

I had read the book three times when it first came out, so I was excited when I got tickets to an advance screening. I was just hoping they didn't ruin the book. I know films can't be like the books, so I carefully did not re-read it.

They did an awesome job with the film. They captured the story, the flavor, the essence of the book, even if they did have to leave some things out. I loved the girls playing Alba.

There was laughing at the funny parts and some crying at the sad. My sister loved it. She had no intentions of reading it and only went because I had tickets. She was sniffly when we left and now has the book.

Notice to guys who like blow em ups. This is a romantic chick flick! Though the one guy I had talked to in line was crying as we left. He did say he loved it.

I would have given it a nine if some of the scenes hadn't been filmed in the dark like a lot of Hollywood.

---

29 out of 34 people found the following comment useful :-
Holding On..., 15 August 2009

Author: jon.h.ochiai (jochiai@socal.rr.com) from Los Angeles, CA

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

On a cold winter's night Clare (Rachel McAdams) confesses to her husband Henry (Eric Bana), "I wouldn't change a second of our life together." McAdams and Bana are both beautiful and amazing in Director Robert Schwentke's "The Time Traveler's Wife" based on the bestselling novel by Audrey Niffenegger. "The Time Traveler's Wife" adapted by screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin is a bitter sweet and strange love story. It is not perfect; although, it ends perfectly. There is a timeless and yearning quality that engages in "The Time Traveler's Wife". However, Schwentke and Rubin might have leveraged sharper emotional arcs at particular narrative points. During the course of their lives, Clare and Henry experience tragedy and joy. In spite of this, Rachel McAdams is stunning. I am in love with her. Bana is powerful and moving.

In a heartbreaking scene Clare (McAdams) tells Henry (Bana), "Do you think I wanted this life?" Time Traveler Henry indiscriminately vanishes to different places in time and space. Interesting to that end, this seems to follow "The Terminator" rule: Henry can only travel through time naked. Also interesting to note that Bana as Henry is a muscular 6'3", which makes finding clothes that fit wherever he arrives difficult. I digress. The point is McAdams captures both Clare's humanity and angst. She embodies an authenticity in Clare. Eric Bana displays a strength and gentleness. His Henry travels to the future and meets his lovely 10 year old daughter Alba (amazing Hailey McCann). He gazes upon Alba with such love when she says, "I love you Daddy!" Underlying it all, "The Time Traveler's Wife" is about legacy and everlasting love. So regardless of some clumsy repetitive narrative loops and circular logic, McAdams and Bana make you care about their love story.

We first see 6 year old Henry (good Alex Ferris) singing with his mom Annette (beautiful and strong Michelle Nolden) in a car. Tragedy befalls, and Henry's Time Traveler abilities are revealed—also by the grown up Henry (Bana). But for Henry this seems more curse than gift. Then one day Clare sees Henry in a Chicago library, and says, "It's you!" Apparently, older Henry has been visiting Clare since she was 6 years old. She says that he seems to keep visiting the same places. Henry replies, "Yeah. It's like gravity." Clare has been in love with Henry her entire life.

It turns out that Henry has a genetic defect that is the cause of his time travel. To that end he seeks out, and finally convinces the bewildered Dr. Kendrick (solid Stephen Tobolowsky) of his plight. But what does this foreshadow about Clare and Henry having a family and their life together? Director Schwentke sort of telegraphs the painful narrative twist. Then he recovers and resolves perfectly and eloquently as Henry regrets, "I can't stay…" Ultimately, "The Time Traveler's Wife" is about life—its joy, fragility, and mortality. Things just happen, not necessarily for a reason. And if you take a chance and find the love of your life, then it is life worth having lived. I loved "The Time Traveler's Life".

---

34 out of 45 people found the following comment useful :-
A Touching and Heartbreaking Love Story, 15 August 2009

Author: Batmans-Pocket from United Kingdom

The most depressing thing about the time traveller's wife is how it breaks your heart within the first five minutes. The story shows the distance between two people due to a lack of time. As time is one of the most precious things in life, Henry's condition creates a big strain on his relationship with Clare.

In a way, the problems between Clare and Henry could be compared to that of a real couple. A husband leaves the house for days on end and turns up again from nowhere, creating an emotional strain between him and his wife which only leads to sadness. Henry's condition makes him look like a selfish person, even though he has no control over the circumstances. This massive problem in their relationship just highlights how much they really love each other.

The story is complicated but somehow still easy to follow. Even though the film is thoroughly enjoyable, the constant skips back and forth through time are rather mind-boggling. The complex ideas of time travel are interesting and well entwined into the love story.

Because time travel is an old concept, the story provides new ideas as to how someone could skip backwards of forwards in time. The idea that Henry always arrives in the past or future nude is a clever and original concept. This idea actually makes a lot of sense because his condition is part of an odd bodily function and his clothes would not be affected by the travel.

Eric Bana shows his ability to keep the story emotionally tense throughout. Rachel McAdams also shines but not as brightly as she has in previous roles. Some of the other cast members fail to convince or show much emotional depth, mainly the younger actors and actresses. However, child actors tend not to have as much ability at such a young age.

The sentimentality and picturesque cinematography makes every second thoroughly enjoyable. The story is well put together and does not become unnecessarily difficult to follow. The mixture of all these elements makes The Time Traveller's Wife a delightful and touching love story.

---

26 out of 34 people found the following comment useful :-
What Benjamin Button Wanted To Be, 15 August 2009

Author: RichardSRussell-1 from United States

The Time Traveler's Wife (PG-13, 1:46) — SF, 2nd string, original, OSIT romantics

This is the movie that Benjamin Button aspired to be. It's the tale of an unusual man, a man who does not experience time the way everybody else does, and of the woman who loves him anyway. Unlike Button, their sheer humanity and love of life make us actually care. Clearly SF, The Time Traveler's Wife has none of the superficiality of character all too common to the genre; indeed, it's as sincere and genuine a love story as you'll ever find in the movies.

The "time traveler" is not the unnamed Edwardian Era protagonist of H. G. Wells's The Time Machine. In fact, this one has a name — Henry DeTamble — and he lives in some vaguely contemporary time period. As the movie opens, we seem him at age 6, happily singing "Jingle Bells" while riding in a car driven by his mother thru a driving rainstorm. Their car gets clipped, Henry gets banged up a bit, and the shock triggers his 1st time jump. Mere seconds later, he returns to the side of the road and watches horrified as his mother, frantically twisting around to search the back seat for her suddenly missing son, fails to see the big truck bearing down on her. And moments after that, his future self (Eric Bana) arrives to assure him that things will get better.

It is left to the viewer to imagine how Henry must have felt about his own role in his mother's death. We learn that he doesn't have much control over when he will dematerialize, except that it often seems to be triggered by stress or excitement, so we can imagine the effect this would have on his love life. And he's sometimes gone for weeks at a time with no believable excuse, so this gives us a clue about his job security.

Thus it's no surprise that he's a bit of a mess when, working his Chicago job as a research librarian, he's approached by Clare Abshire, a woman he's never seen before, who professes that she's been in love with him for decades — and that it's been mutual. How messed up is he? Well, he's standing there with Rachel McAdams — OMG! Rachel McAdams!! — aiming that beautiful smile and those big eyes right at him, and he's trying to find excuses to back away. Fortunately for him and the story, she manages to overcome his hesitation.

We learn a very few things about time traveling. Henry can travel to times outside of his own lifetime, but most often he shows up at times and places that occur on his own personal lifeline thru the 4-dimensional space-time monobloc. It's only his body that makes the trip, which means that usually his 1st task on arrival is finding clothes. There's apparently a genetic (not mechanical or quantum) basis for his ability (or affliction), and this leads him to seek aid from Dr. David Kendrick. In a moment reminiscent of transparent aluminum, Henry informs Dr. Kendrick that future scientists will know him as the inventor of the phrase "chrono displacement"; the few other paradoxes are equally subtle.

But the movie isn't so much about time travel as it is about Henry and Clare's profound and enduring love for each other under trying circumstances. Not since Christopher Reeve pined away forlornly for Jane Seymour in Somewhere in Time (1980, haunting theme by John Barry) has this theme been done so well in SF.

Henry, Clare, and their star-crossed relationship take up most of the screen time. But, like a diamond set off by smaller jewels, McAdams and Bana are surrounded by exquisite little gems from the supporting performers, notably Brooklynn Proulx as young Clare and the McCann sisters, Hailey and Tatum, as their dotter Alba at ages 10 and 5.

No film is perfect, and this one isn't either, but I have to single out one niggling detail that kept distracting me thruout this movie and most other ones that Eric Bana has appeared in. It's this: Somebody should introduce the guy to either a razor or the concept of a beard. I don't care how devoted Rachel McAdams is to you, if you look like you're always coming off a perpetual hangover, it's gonna wear off.

---

28 out of 38 people found the following comment useful :-
Surprisingly good movie! A great date movie!, 14 August 2009

Author: theartman7 from United States

When I entered this one, I thought it would be another Kate Hudson/Matthew McConaughey, Richard Gere/Julia Roberts,Diane Lane, wuvvy-duvvey-cutesy-wootsy boring predictable love movie.

I was completely wrong. We've all seen movies that involve time travel and this one is near the top.

It shows the reality of a relationship between two individuals who have to deal with the negative effects of time travel in a close relationship.

This movie had me near tears at the end, which is truly sad since I haven't cried since the movie Beaches.

The only thing I didn't like about this movie was that I found myself trying to figure out this mans time travel and if it made sense. There are a few loose ends left untied.

Other than that, the two leads were solid and the movie is entertaining. I wouldn't rush out to see it, but it is definitely worth renting.

---

8 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
I really wish she could hear you sing … The Time Traveler's Wife, 15 August 2009

Author: babubhaut from buffalo, ny, usa

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I'll admit that after reading some early remarks about Robert Schwentke's cinematic version I was very worried, in fact so much so that my expectations were somewhat low. This fact might have weighed on my ultimate decision concerning my enjoyment in seeing the DeTamble family's story on screen because I actually really bought in and was swept away for the journey. Yes, a lot, (and I do mean a lot), is omitted through the adaptation process of Oscar-winner Bruce Joel Rubin, but enough is kept to stay true to that romantic tone. Distilled down and perhaps dumbed-down, The Time Traveler's Wife may lose some of its geeky sci-fi flavor, but the heart and soul remains intact to be a solid date movie and entry to the romance drama genre.

I won't lie; I was disappointed overall. So much of the backstory and many reasons for what occurs to some characters have been tossed aside. But this is completely understandable as New Line needed to make a return on the investment and they couldn't risk losing their entire audience by scaring the girls with its science fiction devices or the boys for its romantic tendencies. Instead, they decided to market it as a love story to see with your significant other on a quiet evening out. On these terms, I really can't fault the job that has been done. I bought into it all right from the start as the filmmakers throw you into the action. Not only do we see young Henry's first travel through time, but we also witness the regular occasion of him meeting another version of himself at a different stage of life, as well as the incident that shapes his life forever—the passing of his mother in front of his eyes. There is no opportunity to waver in the belief of this man moving through time, you see it straight away and then you continue on the journey to see what will occur as a result.

The novel itself used the brilliant device of being told through the eyes of our two leads, Henry and his soulmate Clare Abshire, as diary entries. Alternating one with the other, we experience what they do upon each meeting or journey, hearing their thoughts as they anticipate the next rendezvous, knowing how the one feels before seeing what the other felt at the exact same time. I believe this device could have been used effectively in film with voice-over narration, however, the screenwriter chose not to do so. Instead, the film is pretty much a linear telling of the life of Clare, probably the best entry point in being that the title does reference her; she is the one who must cope with this man that she cannot live without yet can also never truly have to herself. We end up going back in time to see her as a child, meeting a late-30s Henry, but only in flashbacks and memories from when the two 20-something versions of them meet. You see the bond forming and fate working its way in, setting a specific path as both tell each other future details they know because of the time traveling; he telling a young girl what is in store and she telling a young man the words his elder self passed on.

Are Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana ideal actors to portray these roles … I'm not so sure. They do, however, perform well and allow for some chemistry to give us cause to buy into the emotional turmoil they experience on a daily basis. Between the struggles to just see each other without Henry disappearing, to the pains of miscarriages and the possibility that they may never have children, to the knowledge of so much that will happen and trying to still believe they are making choices, the DeTambles are not your normal family by any means. What made the book so wonderful was the realism in the fictional heartaches and consequences of being with, or just plain knowing, someone with "chrono displacement syndrome". And I do believe our main characters carry that weight enough to draw a skeptic in. The other reason for Niffenegger's novel's genius is the large supporting cast, each with a history to themselves and a crucial part to play in the life of Henry and Clare. Unfortunately, in order to devote time to this tragic couple's progression in less than two hours, almost all the nuance is gone. What I wouldn't give for this to have been a miniseries or even a season of television so it could breath life into everyone.

You also never understand the sense of danger in what happens to Henry. Sure you see him pick some locks and get into fights, but what about the reason for why he ends up in a wheelchair? I know they have that one line about hypothermia and being stuck in the snow, but that story is so much bigger. By making it about Clare and how her life is affected, you only see Henry's condition as a nuisance rather than a life-threatening affliction that could tear them apart forever, (I liked the very intriguing Joy Division cover at the wedding, pertaining to this fact). As a result, the film's ending is similar to the book, but, in my opinion, not quite as memorable or important. Again, though, just because I know the novel is a masterpiece should not detract me from the film; it is its own entity. On the movie The Time Traveler's Wife's merits alone I am happy to say it is well worth the time. You still have to buy into the whole time travel thing, but rather than take the leap of faith scientifically with the printed version, you only need to want to see these two lovers grow old together. You pull for them to live happily ever after and frankly that is what a good romantic drama should do.

---

9 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Nicholas Sparks channels Rod Serling, 2 September 2009

Author: J_Trex from Philadelphia

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.

---

---

Page 1 of 9:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot synopsis	Ratings	Newsgroup reviews
External reviews	Parents Guide	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history