Two years ago I read The Time Travelers Wife by Audrey Niffenegger and was absolutely blown away, so when I heard it was to be made into a film I knew it was something I had to see. I was kept waiting though, as the release was postponed by a year, however on the 14 th of August 2009 it finally made it's way to the cinema screens.
The plot is an unusual one. Clare Abshire (Rachel McAdams) met Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana) when she was 6 years old and he was 36. They married when she was 22 and he 30. How is that possible? Well Henry has a genetic disorder which results in him time traveling involuntarily at any time, usually to a place in his past which his significant to him, and occasionally to the future.
The film begins with a 5 year old Henry in a car with his Mother, driving in the snow. An accident occurs, killing his Mother yet Henry is found unscathed at the side of the road, completely naked.
Roll on 25 years and Henry is at work in a Library when a young woman (Clare) recognises him and
obviously knows him very well. Yet Henry doesn't know her at all. A future Henry has been travelling to Clare's past since she was 6 years old. The film then follows their life together, linear to Clare.
This is undoubtedly a love story first and fore-most, with time travelling thrown in as a unique twist. While it sounds complicated, it isn't really and is quite easy to follow. I was quite sceptical after seeing trailers of the movie, as it looked quite fluffy, which the book is far from. While it wasn't as dumbed down as I'd feared, it is quite chick-flickie and soft.
Eric Bana plays a good part as Henry. Life isn't easy when your snatched from your present and dumped naked somewhere else in time, quite randomly. Bana plays Henry with the weariness and bitterness Henry feels at his situation and I found him completely believable as the character.
Rachel McAdams, for me, was a disappointment. I would have expected a more feisty character than the one she portrayed. She seems to accept things without question and comes across a bit wet, and I didn't believe in her as a character. I also found the chemistry between Bana and Mcadams a bit lacking. It was too lovey dovey without the passion I feel they should share. I also found the supporting cast somewhat disappointing. There was nothing wrong with their acting skills, I just felt they were under used and their relationship to Henry, how his time travelling condition affects them, wasn't explored.
What really did impress me though were the special effects. As a romantic film it doesn't demand many, but I was intrigued to see how the film makers would tackle Henry's disappearing. This was done fantastically, with him slowly fading, then as one of the pitfalls of his time travelling is that nothing can go with him, you see his clothes standing upright as they where on him, only he isn't there anymore, and then falling to the ground in a swoosh. It's quite eerie in a way, but humorous as well and very well done.
The second half of the film takes a more serious turn than the first, as the reality and dangers of Henry's genetic disorder becomes apparent. I found myself engaging more with the film and it didn't fail to shock and move me when it should. As the film speeds up to the inevitable climax the viewer knows is going to occur - we've seen hints of the future along with Henry, it becomes very tense and much darker. l left the cinema crying and glad that I had seen it.
So, how does it compare to the book? Well in truth, for me it didn't come anywhere close. That isn't to say this is a really terrible film, because it's not. I think though that you need to look at the book and the film as two separate things. The book is far grittier, violent and hard hitting. Some of it is difficult to read, but to me, this is what makes the time travelling idea believable. I didn't find that with the film, it always seemed like a fantasy, there's more focus on the love story and it's likely to slip into the chick-flick genre. But as a chick-flick, I think it's really quite good. It is original, funny in places, and certainly tugs on your heart strings. The film is rated 12A which surprised me when I first saw that. There is no way I would give the book to an under 12, or probably an under 15 and it does seem they left the grittier stuff out to allow the lower classification.
I think having read the book and loved it so much had an adverse effect on my enjoyment of the film, as I was constantly waiting for things to happen, quite a lot of which didn't. I think I'd suggest that people see the movie before reading the book, if they haven't already done so.
Overall I did enjoy the film. For the first half an hour I was convinced I wouldn't as it was just too fluffy for me. Thankfully in the second half it redeemed itself and became a worthwhile film. I had high expectations for this film, and while I don't feel they where met, I didn't feel cheated. I don't think it's likely to become one of my favourite movies, and I'll wait for it to come on Sky or rent it rather than buying the DVD. However it wasn't a bad couple of hours spent, I left feeling teary and happy to have seen it and would watch it again.
Rated 12A Running Time 107 minutes
How helpful would this review be to a person making a buying decision? Rating guidelines
Production Year: 2004 - Drama - Director: Nick Cassavetes - Original Language: English - Classification: 15 years and over, 12 years and over - Starring: Rachel McAdams, Ryan Gosling, Gena Rowlands
Production Year: 1995 - Drama - Director: Ang Lee - Original Language: English - Classification: Universal - Starring: Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman, Kate Winslet, Hugh Grant, Greg Wise, Hugh Laurie, Robert Hardy
Aug 24th, 2009
very helpful by (100%):
