lol I like how the picture is from Wedding Crashers. Gameface.

Wut

There's some Zingy lingo for ya. "Gameface."

I was asking what the heck it meant.

Have you two longtime KJ members no shame?!?

Are the "Everyone's A Critic" review threads now just a playground for off topic derails?

Are there not enough other threads in the forum to satisfy your horseplay?

If there wasn't - - couldn't you two just create an infinite number of threads to do so in?

Is that an echo I hear?

ECHO...

Echo...

echo...

Wow, sorry Grandpa!

Get outta my yard/thread, you kids!!!

I saw it earlier today and loved it. Full review soon.

I thought i'd seen that scene before and then put it down as deja vu. I think i'll keep it though, kind of seems like McAdams time travelled back to one of her own movies

did anyone see The Daily Show interview with Rachel? Im happy someone asked the burning questions about Time Travel child molestation.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episod ... el-mcadams

Wow, really?

Bah 12 replies and only 1 review?!

Oh wait...

LOL! That's funny .

Okay back on topic, folks, please.

This is a solid, relatively straightforward adaptation of the novel. Director Robert Schwentke (of the stupefyingly lame Flightplan) and screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin don't deviate from the novel too much and keep the majority of the book's biggest "events," although the novel was very intricate and a little is lost in the film translation. Eric Bana's low-key acting style makes him perfectly suited for the role of Henry. He is counterbalanced by the enchanting Rachel McAdams, who brings Clare to life with considerable spark and energy. McAdams and Bana don't have red-hot chemistry (certainly nothing close to McAdams and Ryan Gosling in The Notebook) but they're believable in their roles, which is what matters. A complaint I had was that the movie could've used some more depth at times, since a lot of subtleties and nuances from the novel aren't effectively duplicated in the film. Either way, this movie is worth seeing for those who likes their romances without them drowning in sap. B

B, not much to say about this movie

Spoiler Alert:

This is yet another cliche, headache-inducing, melodramatic love story; however, despite the cliches and general plot outline, the film brings something fresh to the table, including the time travel and tearjerking ending. Despite the originality, however, the time travel got a bit confusing at parts, especially when he was watching himself at a certain moment, and the very end, when he comes back to see Claire after he dies, makes me wonder if it was really that big of a deal that he died...since he can still time travel. Originally, I loved it at about an A-, but AS SOON AS that horrid question came into my mind, "Couldn't he have just died and NOT been able to time travel back?," my grade dropped to a B. There's no point in him dying if he can still time travel basically.

Yes, it's cliche and filled with numerous plot holes and questionable concepts, but all in all, it creates some magic and includes something other romances lack: some originality, substance, and most importantly, heart.

Grade: B

Aye, there's the rub.

Hmm, this was a very frustrating movie. The story itself is a very beautiful, very intricate story that works, obviously, much better in the written form. The book itself is a really excellent book that was quite moving, and handled a ridiculous subject matter surprisingly well. The cast is fine, McAdams makes Claire much more warm than she was in the book, in my opinion. She's excellent in the film, and she looks stunning. Bana is okay as Henry, not the Henry I had imagined but he is fine. He comes off as very comical, and awkward in the first half of the film. The child actors in the film are very strong. The plot of the film is messy and awkward - it handles the scenes with Henry and Claire(when Claire was younger), very, very well, I thought but the scenes with them near the same age not as well. I can't put my finger on it, but everything just seemed so misplaced. The score is horrendous, and makes moments comical or tense when they're not. The ending, like FL said, is drastically different from the book and not in a good way, as we saw with My Sister's Keeper, though that's really more of a personal choice. The biggest problem with the film, is something that is common with many book-to-film adaptations, the subtraction of moments and and key characters, and what not. Many things are changed, and not for the better, but in this particular case it makes the film feel very awkward because when it changes, it changes the story that the book presented so well. Things such as Henry's running is never explained, when they win the lottery is drastically different, the aforementioned ending, the wedding, the choosing of their home, so on and so forth, and one can say I am nitpicking, with this story a lot needed to be included for it to not only make sense, but flow properly. Eh. C

Anyone feel like spoiling some of the changes from the book to the movie?


This was a letdown. It jumps into things too fast and you don't get a chance to care. Eric Bana and Rachel McAdams are both good on their own, but together they have no real chemistry. The ending should be sad, but you don't care enough about these two and their plight for it to be all that devastating. I didn't really get into the movie until the wedding, and then I found it decent. But it's very flawed and things aren't well explained. You basically go away thinking "That doesn't make any sense." I'd say it's best if you don't overthink it, but it's impossible not to have at least one question pop into your head about what goes on during the course of this movie, and if you do you're screwed. It doesn't take much to find holes in this one.

Now I probably sound like I didn't like it at all, but that's not the case. I thought it was decent, just incredibly flawed. I thought "The Notebook" was overrated, but by comparison it almost seems like a masterpiece. "The Time Traveler's Wife" promised to be achingly romantic (at least it was an unspoken promise), but it's not even somewhat romantic. There was definitely a good romantic story in here somewhere, but it's completely mishandled. In fact, the more I talk and think about it, the less I like it.

This is definitely best as a DVD rental.


Grade: 6/10 (C+)

Think you misunderstood it. When she meets Bana at the end, it's the younger alive version traveling to the future past his own life... like when he met the 10 year old Elba. When he's dead, he's dead.

Several friends have told me this is based on a great book. If it is, the guy who adapted the screenplay must REALLY suck.

It's a pretty bad screenplay, pretty bland directing, pretty flawed execution and pretty off key acting. I like Eric Bana and I really like Rachel McAdams, however they are at their very least likeable here. McAdams just seems confused and unsure of what she is supposed to be doing here, and bana.....I don't know what happened, he was just so dull and unlikeable. I wanted to walk up to the screen and say "wtf happened to your charisma!? Did it disappear while you were traveling in time?"
Seriously though, this isn't even a movie. It's a random collection of scenes, none of which are particularly interesting, engagin, or realistic on their own. Maybe if it had been pulled together into a film I could've kind of enjoyed this, but it wasn't at all.

And honestly, I'm not even gonna get started on the plot holes and lack of logic in the screenplay.

3/10.

No... he's not.

He traveled past when he died. Whether or not it was "present" him... he was still there. Being there, alive = not dead.

6/10 -> C

While it introduces an interesting concept it never fully utilizes the possibilities. It plays too much on sadness and irony of things. The characters never feel fully fleshed out. I never cared about their relationship as much as the movie suggested I should.