Movie Reviews: "The Time Traveler’s Wife" - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

JamesG · 08-15-2009, 07:08 PM

Movie Reviews: The Time Traveler’s Wife

"Preposterous" is the way Roger Ebert describes The Time Traveler's Wife in the Chicago Sun-Times.
"If you allow yourself to think for one moment of the paradoxes, contradictions and logical difficulties involved, you will be lost. The movie supports no objective thought."
Yet he finds much to like in the performances of Eric Bana as the time traveler and Rachel McAdams as his wife. They "play their roles straight and seriously, have a pleasant chemistry, and sort of involved me in spite of myself."

Peter Howell in the Toronto Star remarks that the movie "would amount to little more than a (vanishing) hill of beans were it not for the strong connections between Bana and McAdams, who rise above the shaky material with performances worthy of the Oscar contender this movie aches to be."

On the other hand, Michael Sragow in the Baltimore Sun writes that both Bana and McAdams are so strenuously and generically ardent here, I wondered what they were thinking of when they were miming passion and woe: a favorite pet? A high school crush? Or maybe some missing pages from the book?"

Joanne Kaufman in the Wall Street Journal offers little sympathy, however. "Mr. Bana, who seems to have two modes of acting, shaven and unshaven, and the ill-used Ms. McAdams don't generate much heat. But clearly, the two of them are suffering mightily. Their situation is hopeless and so is their dialogue."

But Mick Lasalle in the San Francisco Chronicle figures that despite its clumsiness, the movie "does something significant. It takes, as its subjects, the sadness and grandeur of life and the mystery of time, and it offers a full experience to those who find its wavelength."

-IMDB News

Schmoopie · 08-16-2009, 06:41 AM

I haven't read the book but when I saw the previews, the film looked romantic, which is the best kind, IMO. I think that a lot of movies that are made from books are kind of underrated, especially if the reviewer hasn't read the book. Someone who has read the book will get a lot more out of the movie, IMO. Sometimes I've seen movies that get me interested enough to read the book afterwards. However, I actually prefer to read the book first and then check out the movie. In rare instances, the movie turns out to be better than the book.

Andrea

browneyes106 · 08-16-2009, 01:44 PM

I saw this yesterday and I didn't think it was bad at all. It wasn't extremely good. The book is better but certain aspects from the book don't work well on screen.

08-15-2009, 07:08 PM	#1
JamesG Freakshow Moderator Forum Icon Join Date: Feb 01, 2008 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 57,153	Movie Reviews: "The Time Traveler’s Wife" Movie Reviews: The Time Traveler’s Wife "Preposterous" is the way Roger Ebert describes The Time Traveler's Wife in the Chicago Sun-Times. "If you allow yourself to think for one moment of the paradoxes, contradictions and logical difficulties involved, you will be lost. The movie supports no objective thought." Yet he finds much to like in the performances of Eric Bana as the time traveler and Rachel McAdams as his wife. They "play their roles straight and seriously, have a pleasant chemistry, and sort of involved me in spite of myself." Peter Howell in the Toronto Star remarks that the movie "would amount to little more than a (vanishing) hill of beans were it not for the strong connections between Bana and McAdams, who rise above the shaky material with performances worthy of the Oscar contender this movie aches to be." On the other hand, Michael Sragow in the Baltimore Sun writes that both Bana and McAdams are so strenuously and generically ardent here, I wondered what they were thinking of when they were miming passion and woe: a favorite pet? A high school crush? Or maybe some missing pages from the book?" Joanne Kaufman in the Wall Street Journal offers little sympathy, however. "Mr. Bana, who seems to have two modes of acting, shaven and unshaven, and the ill-used Ms. McAdams don't generate much heat. But clearly, the two of them are suffering mightily. Their situation is hopeless and so is their dialogue." But Mick Lasalle in the San Francisco Chronicle figures that despite its clumsiness, the movie "does something significant. It takes, as its subjects, the sadness and grandeur of life and the mystery of time, and it offers a full experience to those who find its wavelength." -IMDB News

08-16-2009, 06:41 AM	#2
Schmoopie Keep Calm and Love Snoopy Forum Star Join Date: Jul 13, 2008 Location: Lynnwood, Washington Posts: 15,697	I haven't read the book but when I saw the previews, the film looked romantic, which is the best kind, IMO. I think that a lot of movies that are made from books are kind of underrated, especially if the reviewer hasn't read the book. Someone who has read the book will get a lot more out of the movie, IMO. Sometimes I've seen movies that get me interested enough to read the book afterwards. However, I actually prefer to read the book first and then check out the movie. In rare instances, the movie turns out to be better than the book. Andrea
	__________________ In memory of my wonderful husband. I love and miss you more than words can say, but I will always and forever keep you in my heart. September 23, 1961-January 14, 2019

08-16-2009, 01:44 PM	#3
browneyes106 Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Apr 01, 2008 Posts: 6,094	I saw this yesterday and I didn't think it was bad at all. It wasn't extremely good. The book is better but certain aspects from the book don't work well on screen.