The Time Traveler's Wife

Gracefully directed by Robert Schwentke, the film has a perfect performance by Bana, rangy and haunted, never at home in his body.

May not make a lick of sense, but it does make for fairly irresistible nonsense.

It's soppy enough to suit the requirements of the weepie genre...But the movie also has an aching solidity that allows you to surrender to its cuddly-creepy feelings without hating yourself in the morning.

Screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin won an Oscar for "Ghost" (1990), a pleasant, moderately thoughtful weepie that this movie closely resembles.

A syrupy and extraordinarily ridiculous adaptation.

Will disappoint anyone looking for transport from a movie--being a time traveler's wife, it turns out, is mostly a drag.

They miss by a mile – or should I say, a light-year.

Most reviews Iâ

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

I do not normally like soppy films but this one had an interesting premise to it and actually posed some extremely fascinating morale dilemmas. I enjoyed Eric Bana's performance while Rachel McAdams gave a decent account of herself.

The hollow sweetness of a temporal cliché: A 2.0-star "lukewarm" romance of stagnant intrigue.2009 (2.0)I watched "The Time Traveler's Wife" in the theater in 2009, and it resulted in a disappointing 2.0-star record that failed to satisfy my high expectations for the genre. As someone who is unconditionally "hororong" (captivated) by any narrative involving time travel, I rushed to the cinema with high-tension excitement, only to find a story that was far too focused on stagnant romance rather than the visceral or sensational mechanics of its sci-fi premise. The narrative rhythm felt overly sentimental and followed a predictable path that failed to shatter the fourth wall of my skepticism. While the concept of a man involuntarily shifting through time offered potential for a "chewy" and complex exploration of fate, the execution felt like a "pathetic" and safe melodrama that didn't provide any intellectual revelation. The 95% preservation of my memory is dominated by a sense of "silent frustration" as the film favored hollow emotional tropes over a "raw" or vivid exploration of temporal paradoxes. It was a functional theatrical experience, far better than a "1.0-star trauma," but it lacked the sensational edge or the high-tension brilliance found in my 5.0-star archive entries. Ultimately, it remains a lackluster record of a missed opportunity, proving that even a favorite theme can fall flat when the immersion is diluted by a mediocre and stagnant romance.

This movie was terrible in comparison to the book. The book was so much more romantic. They cut the best parts out of the story, in regards to the movie. The details were all off also, especially about the daughter and the way she was supposed to look like... Urgh what a disappointment.