Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

‘Time Traveler’s Wife’ isn’t worth your time

Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:44 PM EDT
business, only-on-msnbc-com, henry, travelers, at-the-movies, rachel-mcadams, claire, bana, mcadams, henrys, time-traveler�s
msnbc.com News — Alonso Duralde, msnbc.com - Only on msnbc.com
Advertise | AdChoices

— A story that works on paper sometimes can’t survive the leap to a literal and three-dimensional screen adaptation, and while I never read Audrey Niffenegger’s best-seller “The Time Traveler’s Wife,” I can only imagine that the scenes of a 40-something man getting chummy with his 6-year-old bride-to-be must have played better in the book. On film, it feels like “To Catch a Time-Traveling Predator.”

In the mid-1990s, Claire (Rachel McAdams) is thrilled to finally meet Henry (Eric Bana), the man she’s loved all her life. He, on the other hand, has no idea who she is; Henry, you see, has a genetic defect that causes him to jump backward and forward in time. When Henry gets older, he will begin visiting young Claire, but the 20-something Henry hasn’t done so yet, so this counts as his first meeting with Claire.

And if that paragraph gave you a headache, you’re not going to have much better luck with “The Time Traveler’s Wife,” which plops us right into the story without so much as an opening title card, providing scant explanation regarding Henry’s time-jumping (he apparently can’t control it), who these characters are, how they feel about each other or why we’re supposed to care about any of them.

In true “Terminator” fashion, Henry loses his clothes every time he gets swept away, so when he lands in a new era, the first order of business is finding or stealing something to wear. Geographically, he appears to be limited to the greater Chicagoland area, but the rules seem to constantly change as to how far forward or backward in time he can go.

Claire marries Henry — even though young Henry disappears right before the ceremony and middle-aged Henry actually takes the vows — but later complains about his sudden disappearances, as though she didn’t realize that would be part of the deal. Granted, she rightly notes that she never had any choice about falling in love with him, since he begins wooing her in her childhood.

Again, this might have been romantic in the book, but on screen it feels like we’re watching the story of a young woman in one of those polygamist compounds who’s been paired off with a man before hitting her tween years. This isn’t a swoony love story; it’s a portrait of child abuse.

As the couple ages and argues over issues like child-bearing — Claire keeps trying but the fetuses keep time-shifting out of her womb; we should be thankful that the film doesn’t tell us where they land — older Henry finds comfort in his visits to young Claire while older Claire seeks succor in the occasional apparitions of young Henry. This winds up being a story about two people cheating on each other with each other.

Director Robert Schwentke (“Flightplan”) and adapter Bruce Joel Rubin (“Ghost”) can’t get the love story right, and they aren’t even paying that much attention to the internal logic of the time travel. Not to spoil anything, but we see a detour in Henry’s last big jump; when that jump finally happens in the narrative, however, the detour is suddenly forgotten.

Bana and McAdams are two of the most charismatic performers working in the movies today, but even they can’t elevate this muddled mess. (It’s always nice to see character actors like Arliss Howard and Stephen Tobolowsky get work, in any event.) If you want romance with a little time-travel mixed in, rent “Slaughterhouse-Five” or “Time After Time” instead; “The Time Traveler’s Wife” will merely steal 107 precious minutes from your own life.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Alonso Duralde's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (27)
NewHampshireMom

Aww...I was hoping this would be good :-( I love Rachel McAdams.

    Reply#1 - Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:14 PM EDT
    onlymyopinion

    really,don'tlisten to a "critics" point of view, just go and get your eric bana on...

      #1.1 - Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:27 PM EDT
      Nancy Sawyer

      I don't listen to the critics....got see it, I'm sure it will be a good movie.  Critics have been way off before....I recall ET being noted as going to be a flop.  Eric Bana and Rachel McAdams, got to be a good movie!

        #1.2 - Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:30 PM EDT
        Corpha

        He's way off on this one. I saw it and LOVED it. It made me laugh and cry. One of my favorite movies and I'll definitely get the DVD.

          #1.3 - Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:49 PM EDT
          Reply
          jkatze

          The first sentence says it all, Duralde is too lazy or too illiterate to read the novel. And he presumes to be able to judge the movie. He has the makings of an arrogant jerk. Or maybe he just can't relate beyond movie such as "Terminator".

          • 3 votes
          Reply#2 - Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:40 PM EDT
          schmadrian

          Actually, his (or anyone's) enjoyment of the movie should not be dependent on the novel. Regardless of a film's source material, what's on the screen is the only thing that matters. As a screenwriter who's adapted books in the past, I know how difficult it can be to 'translate' what's on the page, to the screen. But you make the attempt understanding that a viewer's experience shouldn't be predicated on whether or not they've read the novel, the comic book, seen the tv series, heard the song...or are familiar with the joke.

          Otherwise, we may as well hand out supplementary materials for each viewer entitled 'Stuff You Need To Know In Order to Get The Most Out of Your Cinematic Experience'. Not.

            #2.1 - Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:05 AM EDT
            Reply
            valerie-1275841

            This is one of my favorite books of all time and I have been looking forward to the movie. I can see how this story would be difficult to translate on screen, but the previews look great and I love the casting. If anyone is turned off the movie by this review, please at least go buy the book - it is fantastic!

            • 1 vote
            Reply#3 - Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:35 PM EDT
            Adrastia

            Nothing makes me speed away in the other direction faster than the mention of romance. Romance is sooo boring. x.x

            Yes yes. You love each other. Kiss kiss. Hug hug. I get it.

            Although I like time travel. This may not appeal to me though. I've never heard of either star of this film. But apparently they're popular or talented or something. Like most novel to film translations it's probably got a few hiccups in there. That's to be expected.

              Reply#4 - Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:24 AM EDT
              HeatherWithaC

              Never heard of either Eric Bana or Rachel McAdams? Both are pretty mainstream actors, and I bet you have seen (and definitely heard of) some of their more high profile/recent films.

              Bana- Black Hawk Down, Hulk, Troy, Munich, The Other Boleyn Girl, Star Trek, Funny People

              McAdams- Mean Girls, The Notebook, Wedding Crashers, Red Eye, The Family Stone, and the upcoming Sherlock Holmes

              • 2 votes
              #4.1 - Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:05 AM EDT
              Reply
              ATOwen

              Boo to you! I HAVE read the book, and it was excellent! I would love to read a review from someone who has ACTUALLY READ the book!

                Reply#5 - Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:46 AM EDT
                God bless America

                A book is usually better than a movie, due to the ability to use words to paint the picture of the event - the detail is more complete. I can't imagine this being a bad movie with Eric Bana and Rachel mcAdams. It will at the least be pretty to look at.

                  #5.1 - Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:51 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  ecattheak

                  Just so you know, her name is spelled Clare in the book and in the movie (apparently you didn't take the time to look at the credits). Maybe if you did some research on it before writing your review you would have a little more credibility. And they probably didn't explain the time travel "rules" that henry follows because in the book, those aren't revealed right away. I'm sure the writers of the script much like the writer of the book thought that audience members would be able to pick it up. Unfortunately for you, you didn't want to use your brain to figure it out.

                    Reply#6 - Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:21 AM EDT
                    jmk-426850

                    I really liked the book. Maybe the people who read the book will like the movie.

                      Reply#7 - Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:58 AM EDT
                      Gigi1017

                      This is one of my all time favorite books. I've been hopeful for the film and will still see it. I am still wary though. 107 minutes? That's IT? I was wondering how they would be able to make the book into a short movie because of the complexity but getting it down to only 107 minutes tells me they cut way too much out most likely. That's sad.

                        Reply#8 - Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:17 AM EDT
                        otm

                        Once again Duralde proves what an ass he is. He actually has the audacity to make assumptions about a book he didn't read that was turned into a movie. Someone at MSNBC should take the bull by the horns and gore Alonso. Please, someone, anyone, get wise and can this moron. But they won't. I guess they like the fact that his bonehead reviews generate more outrage then interest in the movies he reviews that they don't even care about his content. I think someone should review his reviews. Now those would all surely get panned.

                        • 2 votes
                        Reply#9 - Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:34 AM EDT
                        Hot-in-Miami

                        Just because he doesn't like the movie doesn't mean it's an awful movie, I have been to movies that movie critics claim were amazing and I totally hated, and I have been to poorly rated movies that I loved and could not figure out why they were so poorly rated. It's a matter of taste, and no one should take his opinion seriously without also seeing the movie and having your own opinion.

                          Reply#10 - Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:46 AM EDT
                          maybe-612709

                          I find it ironic that most of his complaints about the movie ARE actually what made the book interesting. It really goes to show that he hasn't read the book. I bet, if he did read the book, he would still be one of those people who just don't get it.

                          If it's not an over-the-top love story, I am GLAD. I was worried that they were going to turn it into a freaking Nicholas Sparks knock-off (sorry Rachel McAdams, but I just can't help but expect it from you...) when in reality, parts of the book WERE kind of disturbing.

                          It's one of my favorite books of all time, don't get me wrong... but I didn't see it as this pristine love story. There is some SICK stuff going on in their relationship. That's what makes them seem real, it's what makes the story so fascinating.

                          The only complaint I have? The fact that they cast Eric Bana. I couldn't disagree more about him being "the most charismatic performers working in the movies today." He's usually pretty awful, especially if he has to fake an American accent. He comes across as this aloof meat-head a lot of the time, when it just doesn't fit Henry. I think they needed someone with a more scraggly, punky look who had the ability to bridge the gap between impulsive ass and sweet librarian. Robert Downey Jr if he weren't too old. Lee Pace if he weren't too obscure. Even Orlando Bloom could have done the trick.

                            Reply#11 - Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:31 PM EDT
                            IVFMommy

                            I completely agree with your first paragraph maybe612709. I was reading the review and saying, "that's how it happens in the book" to almost every criticism. He really needs a title card to force feed time travel information to him that the character has to figure out as he goes? Ugh.

                              #11.1 - Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:12 PM EDT
                              Reply
                              onlymyopinion

                              let me see so i'm suppose to listen to someone who probally only likes starwars movies...haha just made myself laugh. i will see this movie, then i will read the book, sounds good.

                                Reply#12 - Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:32 PM EDT
                                Groceries

                                Why is a guy reviewing this romantic comedy, complete with references to "Terminator"? The majority of viewers (and likely readers of this review) will be women.

                                As soon as I seen a review of an action movie by a woman with a reference to, say, "The Sound of Music," then I'll know the editors have their heads firmly planted in their nether regions.

                                The reviewer should be either in the film's target demographic or at least attempting to sympathize with said demographic.

                                • 1 vote
                                Reply#13 - Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:45 PM EDT
                                ckm-1277705

                                This is the umpteenth review that incorrectly spells the main female character's name. PLEASE get it right. It's CLARE. No "i" -- hard to believe, but YES, that's the way the author chose to spell it. (Check imdb.com if you can't bother to read the book first.)

                                  Reply#14 - Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:27 PM EDT
                                  ecattheak

                                  Thank you! I stopped believing anything this guy wrote the moment I read how he spelled her name. How can a person be taken seriously if he can't even take the time to make sure he spells everything right?

                                    #14.1 - Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:53 PM EDT
                                    Reply
                                    An Illinois constituent

                                    The book was just as awful as the movie sounds. And the ending was just a total downer. I gave the book to a friend who wanted to read it. After she was finished, she asked me if it was all right to throw it away. I had no intention of seeing the movie unless there were substantial changes to the premise. Oh, well.

                                      Reply#15 - Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:15 PM EDT
                                      nygranny

                                      Oh please, oh please, don't listen to this "do not know it all"....he obviously doesn't have any foresight when it comes to romances. This was a good movie and I was happy with the plot following but yes, limiting too, the original story line. How are you going to fit a full length novel into an hour and a half screen film??? I loved it and so did my friends...it was also a wonderful book, hence it's bestseller status! Go read a Harlequin novel, some of you don't know a good thing when you read it!

                                        Reply#16 - Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:14 PM EDT
                                        TheBeck

                                        My interpretation of this movie was that he was showing up in the woods around the field in the beginning because of what happened in those woods at the end. He thought he couldn't affect the past/future but he could and he DID but not in the way he wanted (his mom).

                                        Or maybe it is simply a statement on the constitutional right to bear arms?

                                          Reply#17 - Sat Aug 15, 2009 5:24 AM EDT
                                          meechness

                                          The Time Traveler's Wife is my favorite book of all time, and I wasn't disappointed by the movie. Yes, there are several dark parts of the book that are left out (drug use, crazy ex girfriend of Henry, suicidal women, etc) but I feel they did a pretty good job adapting the story itself. It's not going to be perfect. Most times, the movie version of the book never lives up to the actual novel. But to bash this movie and tell you not to see it, and admitting he has not read the book? I can't believe this man.

                                          Do yourself a favor and read the book. You just might like it, if you have the ability to be open-minded.

                                            Reply#18 - Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:00 AM EDT
                                            Retired Army1SG

                                            Its a chcik flick! I took my wife to it and its ok, not one I would recommend for a guy to go alone to but still ok. You cant think about every little detail and the critics rearly know whats good or bad. Their acting was fine and you'll be drawn into it but I do agree if some more time could of be in explaining some areas I would of like it more. But again, this is a CHICK flick.

                                              Reply#19 - Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:01 PM EDT
                                              breelaboyDeleted
                                              breelaboyDeleted
                                              breelaboyDeleted
                                              Leave a Comment:
                                              You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                              You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                              (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                              Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                              As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                              FUN STUFF:
                                              • Leaderboard |
                                              • E-Mail Alerts |
                                              • Top of the Vine |
                                              • Newsvine Live |
                                              • Newsvine Archives |
                                              • The Greenhouse
                                              COMPANY STUFF:
                                              • Code of Honor |
                                              • Company Info |
                                              • Contact Us |
                                              • Jobs |
                                              • User Agreement |
                                              • Privacy Policy |
                                              • About our ads
                                              LEGAL STUFF:
                                              • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                              • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                              • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com