The Time Traveler's Wife | 
| Director: Robert Schwentke
Actors: Rachel McAdams, Eric Bana, Arliss Howard, Ron Livingston
Studio: New Line
Category: DVD
List Price: $19.98
Buy Used: $3.97
as of 9/9/2010 07:34 CDT details
You Save: $16.01 (80%)
New (45) Used (45) from $3.97
Seller: goHastings
Rating:  127 reviews
Sales Rank: 387
Format: Color, Dolby, DVD, Widescreen, Subtitled, NTSC
Languages: English (Unknown), English (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled)
Rating: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Autographed: No
Memorabilia: No
Region: 1
Discs: 1
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Running Time: 107 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.4 x 0.6
MPN: TRNDN095233D
UPC: 794043132353
EAN: 0794043132353
ASIN: B001HN69C2
Theatrical Release Date: January 1, 2009
Release Date: February 9, 2010
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
A romantic drama about a chicago librarian with a gene that causes him to involuntarily time travel and the complications it creates for his marriage. Studio: New Line Home Video Release Date: 02/09/2010 Starring: Eric Bana Rating: Pg13 Director: Robert Schwentke
Amazon.com
A genuinely old-fashioned Hollywood romance with a science fiction angle, The Time Traveler's Wife stars Eric Bana as Henry DeTamble, a Chicago librarian with a genetic disorder causing him to travel through time involuntarily. The screenplay by Bruce Joel Rubin (My Life), based on a novel by Audrey Niffenegger, incorporates some of those crazy paradoxes that are a part of time-travel fiction, but without beating one over the head. Take Henry's introduction to his future wife, Clare (Rachel McAdams), who tells him they've already met even though they haven't actually met. Brain teasers, however, are not what The Time Traveler's Wife is about. In a quite haunting way, the story really concerns what it means to know and love someone at every phase of his or her life. The fact that Henry's life, from Clare's perspective, is hardly linear--he can disappear and turn back up again at different ages--means that she must cherish what is essential about him. Which doesn't mean the couple is immune to periods of unhappiness, including a painful sequence about trying to bear a child--perhaps a child that might also carry the time-traveling gene. While there is nothing particularly exciting stylistically about The Time Traveler's Wife, in many ways it has the simple charms and clear emotions of a 1940s weepie assigned by a studio to one of its journeyman, contract directors. (The film was directed by Flightplan's Robert Schwentke.) A couple of supporting players, Arliss Howard (as Henry's father) and Ron Livingston (as Henry's friend), provide even more reason to recommend this movie as a satisfying experience. --Tom Keogh
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 127
 Beautiful September 9, 2010
R. Wolfe (Philadelphia, PA)
I just got done watching this movie. I have been a fan of the novel for years now, and I had put off seeing the film because I was worried it hadn't done one of my favorite stories justice. The film was met with mixed reviews, and I wasn't ready to see it if it was a trainwreck. Now, having seen it finally, I have to say that I was thoroughly impressed with the movie, and I would whole-heartedly recommend it to a fan of the novel. I think it should hang together very well for anyone who hasn't read it, but I honestly can't say that for 100% certain, since I just don't have that perspective as a longtime fan of the novel. I am a huge sci fi fan, and I love that this story uses a sci fi concept to drive it places very little sci fi ever bothers to go (the pure love story). It's certainly a love story first with an almost subtle sci fi element. It's also a story about family, and, as a father, I found it quite emotionally poignant.
As a person who knows the story, I found the movie faithful to the original material and the actors cast as perfectly as could be hoped for. The acting was excellent, and the decisions that had to be made to condense this story into just under a 2-hour movie were the right ones. Very little is changed from the book, but, most importantly, the main thrust of this basically tragic love story is kept intact.
I have to say, where the novel seems to me to have an almost gritty feel in a lot of places, the movie defaults to a much more beautiful, and also somber tone. Gone are the references to 70's punk rock and the more rough and bizarre nature of some of Henry's travels are not focused on so much. Even so, it worked. It still felt like the same story, and it still worked just as well--though slightly differently, on you. The settings are rich and emotions are sincere. It is a gorgeous film.
I am not sure what someone who hadn't read the book would make of it if they weren't open to a sci fi twist, however some reviews here indicate that it works very well even without having read the book. I think the film and the novel version are almost complementary. I do like them both equally well. I am dumbfounded by some of the extremely uncomplimentary reviews here calling the film ridiculous or too silly to get through. All one can assume is the sci fi element the story is built around just isn't somewhere some people's brains can go. It's a classic sci fi movie disconnect with a large chunk of the viewing public, though, and should have been expected.
Bottom line: if you have been putting off seeing this movie because of the mixed reviews, forget them and just see it.
Basically, the review ends here except for the comment below, which is a possible minor spoiler . . .
::: Possible Spoiler Alert - Don't Read Before Seeing Movie ::: There may be some who weren't sure about the way the ending was handled, but readers of the novel are still left with their, or "the real," ending by how/where the movie left things. I thought it was perfect, especially because it leaves the book's ending completely still intact, but a special thing only readers of the novel get to appreciate.
It touched my heart and triggered many thoughts of my wife September 7, 2010
S. H. Davis
I know this is not a typical "guy movie", and I'm a fairly athletic, un-feminized 55 year old male. I've NEVER read a romance novel. I've traveled as a consultant for way too many weeks of the year for years, as I'm such a specialist in a niche profession (customizing and implementing major clinical information systems) that there is no work for me in rural S. Illinois, so either we move (lots of issues there) or I travel.
I saw it on HBO, twice actually as I caught it the 1st time a little bit in, so watched it again the next day.
Triggered a lot of thoughts about my wife and our relationship. We met my freshman year in college and I never went out with anyone else after.
I ended up calling her several hours after the 2nd viewing, letting her know I'd been thinking about her and that I missed her. I periodically say "I love you" or "I've been thinking about you", but I can't honestly say I can remember the last time I said "I miss you".
I have read some reviews of this movie that panned it, that came across as the viewpoint of at least partially jaded purists.
I've never commented on a movie before and would never envision myself as a critic.
The movie works, and I believe it touches heart. In the process (watching, thinking after), it makes you reflect on the things that ultimately matter much more that what unfortunately frequently occupies our attention.
 Hmm...I wanted to like it ((may have a spoiler or two)) September 5, 2010
LuvBooks (DC)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
I like Rachel McA and I am so-so with Eric Bana ('Hulk' notwithstanding), but that wasn't enough for me. I've never read the book, so I can't comment on what was missing or changed. I don't read a ton of books or watch movies using time-travel, but this one was a little hard to grip. I didn't really understand the movie until I went to the trusty IMDb boards. Basically the main thing you need to know is (((((((SPOILER COMING UP)))))))) is that there's a Past Henry, a Present Henry, and a Future Henry. HOWEVER, it is ALWAYS the PRESENT for whoever (Clare, Alba) in whatever timeframe he's in. So for example, when he meets 6 yr old Clare...that's HER present, but he's a FUTURE Henry. When he goes back, he's PRESENT Henry with PRESENT Clare. Also, regardless of everything, "life" has already happened or (for 6 yr old Clare) is scheduled to happen.
Or something like that. Honestly, my mind still hasn't totally grasped what I watched.
The movie was easy enough to watch, and one of the things I found interesting was that Future Henry never tried to influence past events. For example, he "meets" his mom on the train (FUTURE Henry meets the mom of 6 yr old Henry--again MOM'S present), but doesn't indicate to her that she's going to die. Also, he doesn't try to influence the outcome of his own tragedy. However, at the same time, when Clare got the winning lottery ticket, he told her that she was going to win. So for me, it seemed like the movie influenced the events that it wanted to.
Again, "life" in this movie is going to happen regardless and the knowledge that Henry doesn't alter anything sort of makes for a confusing experience. Sometimes a jumbled mess. So the idea that just by being there Henry alters history is non-existent. Apparently, he's also unable to know where/when he will be when he travels, although he conveniently comes to the rescue (wedding day and the vasectomy day) on a couple of occasions. One other thing that wasn't clear to me was at the end (((((SPOILER COMING UP))) when Henry travels to the future and sees Alba and Clare and tells Clare not to wait for him. Is this before or after Alba informs him of his death? And does that also mean that eventually he will stop appearing to them...once Present Henry actually dies? I guess I'd just be curious to know if death ends the time travel bc if Alba is 11...he should be dead and in theory, Clare shouldn't be waiting for him. Right?
Who knows. When the credits rolled I had tons of questions. The performances were decent, and I especially loved using two sisters to play Alba at ages 4/5 and 9/10.
 infuriatingly stupid September 4, 2010
Caraculiambro (La Mancha and environs)
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
One of the dumbest movies I've ever seen, featuring a complicated but ultimately stupid plot. I had to stop it about once every fifteen minutes on account of being so dumbstruck by its inanity.
It's a time-travel story. Sure, all time-travel stories have fatal contradictions at their core, but the best ones (e.g., Heinlein's "The Door into Summer") can at least get some good mileage out of the premise before things break down, as they inevitably must.
But this movie doesn't manage get an inch of mileage. Instead the viewer is assaulted by the contradictions full on; they're shoved right in his face to the point where it's impossible to think of anything else. Chiefly this is a result of their having made the script too complicated.
I supposed I would be more forgiving if the filmmakers had had enough presence of mind to develop the allegorical aspects of their premise more boldly (say, time-travelling as a metaphor for someone who cannot deal with his problems and when weighed down by life's fardels chooses to live in the past or simply daydream). But if the authors of this script meant anything like that, the actual execution of the film really dropped the ball with it, as the director instead chose to focus on the quotidian difficulties of time-jumping (e.g., having no clothes) instead of any metaphorical meanings.
 WTH did I just watch? September 2, 2010
D. Mikels (Skunk Holler)
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
Time travel should be intriguing--not goofy. A genetic disorder that causes involuntary time travel, whereby the traveler arrives in the past, or future, in his birthday suit, and he has no control over how long he stays? Plus said traveler must resort to breaking and entering to find clothes for his person, ticking off countless property owners and law enforcement personnel.
Like I said, goofy. Pass the Pepcid.
Thus we have the silly mess that is THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE. A confused-looking Eric Bana is the time traveler, a mild-mannered Chicago librarian who turns into a WWF brawler when he has to go find something to wear. His "disorder" supposedly is beyond his control--he doesn't know when he'll disappear to travel in time, nor how long he'll be gone--yet at one point he tells his future wife, six at the time, the exact day he'll be back so that she may leave some of her father's clothes in the bushes for him.
This thing is more uneven than my latest P&L statement.
At the center of this silliness is a love story--the marriage of the time traveler and his starry-eyed wife (Rachel McAdams). It goes without saying his popping in and out of her life produces considerable strain on the relationship. A missed Christmas here, a zany wedding there, an image of him fatally wounded in the hallway for melodramatic effect, and that pretty much sums it up. McAdams's character exhibits the patience of Job, which sets a good example for anyone wanting to watch the spectacle that is THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE. Be prepared to be dazed, confused. . .and bored.
--D. Mikels
Showing reviews 1-5 of 127
|
|
|
