The Time Traveler's Wife: Review

So, although Julie & Julia put up a respectable effort, when the votes came in, The Time Traveler's Wife eked ahead. Now, for those of you have not seen the movie and plan to see the movie, I can't promise something juicy and crucial to the storyline won't slip out in my review. It wouldn't be MUCH of a review if all I talked about was how yummy Eric Bana looked after he cut off his hair in his older scenes. So, probable spoilers (of both book and film) ahead. You've been warned.

First, I think people who see this movie -- or WANT to see this movie -- will fall into two camps, the same two camps that all really-good-novels-adapted-for-the-big-screen viewers fall into: those who read the book and those who did not. I can't be sure which camp will enjoy this movie more, since I can't be in two camps at once. (And here is where I'll stop with the camp references. You're welcome.) I do think reading the book beforehand (which I did) will make understanding the storyline much easier. We're talking about a man who involuntarily travels back and forward in time, so the movie jumps back and forward in time, and that can get pretty ridiculously confusing if you didn't already work out those "wait, WHEN is this supposed to be? How old is he NOW?" kinks. Although, you could be quite a bit smarter than me (VERY POSSIBLY LIKELY) and followed along with the movie just fine, without needing to open a page of the Audrey Niffenegger novel. I was pretty glad I had the background before viewing, though, even if -- GIANT, FLASHING DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD -- reading the book beforehand also gives the movie some Empire-State high standards to live up to.

The book was a beautiful, complicated life story filled with love and pain and heartbreak. It delved way down deep into Henry DeTamble's (Eric Bana) childhood and his broken, rocky relationship with his father after the death of his mother (that he witnessed, all horribly and stuff like NINE THOUSAND times thanks to his time-traveling quirk of revisiting the same place multiple times). The book wasn't just a love story, but the movie was pretty much just a love story with a little background thrown in for good measure. Obviously the movie is working with time restraints -- and I'm not faulting it one bit for having to shave off important details -- but the book was multi-faceted and about so much more (at least to me) than just how a time traveler falls in love with a woman (Clare Abshire played by Rachel McAdams) he's known since she was a child.

I was afraid -- based off the trailer for the movie, which I kind of hate in retrospect because I don't think it did the movie justice, actually -- that the movie would be this big Hollywood love fest, glossing over the pained lifelong relationship of Henry and Clare, especially how they dealt with a handful of awful miscarriages before finally getting and staying pregnant with their daughter Alba, and I was pleasantly surprised that they did address these things; they did show how imperfect their relationship/marriage was, albeit more sweetly than the book did.

I also loved the wardrobe and the sets (the house Clare and Henry settled in was stunning and charming. I really loved a particular scene where Henry tells Clare about the vasectomy he got without her knowledge or blessing. Overall, I thought it was pretty good. Not great, not mind-blowing, but good.

I wish a couple of things, of course. I wish they hadn't shown Ingrid -- Henry's girlfriend pre-Clare -- as nothing more than the owner of a forgotten-about lipstick tube. I wish they hadn't made Gomez' (Ron Livingston) feelings for Clare so damn subtle, you could barely pick up on them. I wish the acting had been a little stronger. I love Eric Bana, but I think he could have done better overall, and I thought Rachel McAdams was just off the entire movie. Beautiful, OF COURSE MY GOD, but just not quite right. Although I cannot decide for the life of me who would have been better so there you go. And, I REALLY REALLY wish they hadn't ended the movie the way they did, differently from how the book ended. The book ends with Henry instructing Clare that he'll visit her again, after he's passed away, so when he finally does time travel to her when she's an old woman, you get this sinking, sad feeling that this is how she spent her entire life after Henry died, waiting for him, with the pause button pressed in hopes he'd come. In the movie, he does visit another time, but it's unexpectedly, and she didn't know and she says, "Why didn't you tell me you were coming?" He answers, lovingly, "I didn't want you to wait for me." And that's just a little more romantic than the desperate way Clare goes on with her life in the book. I like movies that don't have to end romantically, and so I was a little disappointed this one opted to, but, AGAIN, if you'd never read the book, it would have been a fine ending, even tear-inducing.

So, with all that said -- and, lord, that was a lot -- I enjoyed The Time Traveler's Wife way more than I feared I would and way less than I hoped I would.

I recommend it, though, certainly.

Comments

[mouthy_broad (michele)]

nice review and pro/con list of sorts. i may actually be able to consider seeing it now!

[Alyssa]

Ok, I really intended to wait to read your review before I saw the movie, but the rare opportunity came up for a date night so we took advantage and I actually really did LOVE it, although I see your point on the negative side.

But I thought it was a great companion to the book. By itself I don't think I would have cared as much, but I think, once you've read the book it's kind of nice to have this reader's digest version that highlights some of the best parts. And I liked that the ending was a little more positive than the book. I mean... it could have depressed me twice, but instead the movie left me on a high.

Also, I LOVED Rachel McAdams for this part. I thought she was perfect-- the Claire of my dreams. I was disappointed in Bana, though. Which pains me. I love him. I also am said they had to leave out some of the subtle plot points that give the story some of its depth beyond a romance-- Gomez, Claire's mother, Kimmy, etc. But I get why that's necessary. Still a good movie. Made me cry, and I NEVER cry. I'm glad it was a little lighter than the book. Except Bana. I don't think he touched on Henry's depth even a little. (sobsob)

[Jennie]

Alyssa, I agree with you on Bana, and I too love him. God, I LOVE him in all
caps and I could bold and italicize too and it would not be overstating.
But, you're right. He never felt connected to the character.

The only time I thought differently was in the hospital, after Clare's first
miscarriage. I thought that was a really good scene, and I'm not even sure
he said words then. So ... I don't know what that insinuates.

I usually love Rachel McAdams, more so than she usually deserves that love,
I think, but for some reason I just didn't feel the fit.

[Kate]

I'm glad to hear that you enjoyed it despite it not living up to the book. I hope to see it soon!

One nit-picky thing. Henry's girlfriend pre-Clare was Ingrid, not Celia.

[Jennie]

My mistake; thanks!

[Alyssa]

Yes. That was one of the moments I actually thought was better than in the book. I don't even remember what exactly happens after her first miscarriage in the book and I just read it like 2 weeks ago, but that was a really moving scene in the movie.

Also the part where Claire blows up at him after the vasectomy... didn't happen in the book. She never really just lost it with him in the book and that kind of bugged me. So I'm glad she was a little less perfect in the movie and said what I know I would have said in that situation. You know... if my husband were a time traveler who told me when I was a teenager that we were going to get married and then wouldn't let me have a baby with him when I really wanted one. That situation.

I think my love for McAdams in this movie was that she didn't take it over the top. And she so often does. So maybe it was a circumstance of low expectations being exceeded. But she's also just so dang cute.

[Jennie]

She is SO dang cute.

You know, I think maybe Bana is TOO good-looking, TOO perfect-seeming?
Henry, in the book, came across really selfish and immature and out-of-touch
with so many things. Someone easier to sort of dislike at times may have
been better in the role than him.

[Alyssa]

Agreed. But I can't think of anyone.

I also have to add that my husband loved this movie without having read the book. I did need to clarify a few things. But he was glad we saw it. So it's not too chick-flicky for the manly-mensies.

[sassystitcher]

Julie & Julia was hilarious and touching and magically delicious! Go see it next :)

[jodifur]

I think I'm the only person on the planet who did not like this book. After your movie review, it sounded like I would enjoy the movie more.

I just found the book so sad...and the movie sounded less so.

[Kate]

I loved (and cried through) the whole book. Being someone who went through secondary infertility, the book really touched me. Add the whole time travel, not knowing if husband will be around the next second or when/it he'll return...damn! Haven't seen the movie yet, not sure if I will in the theatre...may need to wait to bawl it out in the privacy of my home, with a pint of ice cream on hand.

Did the movie address the issues with the baby possibly being a time traveler herself?

[Jennie]

Kate, yes it did!
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

[Rebecca]

I'm really glad you reviewed this. I wasn't planning on seeing it because I thought the book was so good, but now I think I will!

[Trish]

Can someone tell me what else Eric Bana has been in? The only other movie I can recall is one where he plays a poker player (Drew Barrymore plays his girlfriend) and I thought he was awful. I saw it on one of the movie channels and I couldn't last an hour.

[Jennie]

Trish, he was pretty great in Munich and not totally awful in The Other
Boleyn Girl. I never saw Troy, though he was in that, too.

[Trish]

Ahh, now I know why I have no idea who he is...I never saw those movies.

[WonderSpot]

Part of what made the book so great was the style of writing. Lyrical and poetic. It's very hard to translate that into film.

And while I did not expect every bit of the book to make it into the film, and I did expect it to focus mostly on Clare and Henry, I was still disappointed in some of the things that were left out. If the film was a love story, primarily, then I don't see the need for the family stories - for seeing his mom die, visiting his dad, etc... I think that they could have forgone that, and perhaps included the part where Henry comes back to avenge Clare's brutal date assault. By including scenes in addition to Henry and Clare for the film, it sort of made both of them fall flat.

My only other complaint is that when Clare says (paraphrased) that she never had a choice but to marry Henry, he looks like an ass, right? But, then, he never had a choice either. She came to him in his 20's and told him that he would go back...so they both had no choice.

I agree about the "don't wait for me" part, though, whole heartedly.

[Jennie]

Very excellent point about him not having a choice either. Great point.

I also thought the same thing about her date assault -- I really wish they
would have included that.

[WonderSpot]

I liked the book, until the ending. At which point I almost threw it across the room. Not just because of the sad, but because of the "it was all pointless" feeling of it. Sigh.

[jodifur]

I had kind of the same feeling. Like, I just read this whole book and this is how it ends?

Jodi
Sent from my iPhone