The concept of "The Time Traveler's Wife" is a very complicated one: not because it deals with a relationship where the man disappears without warning, but because the moments of time travel occur in such a random, intricate form that it can really only be pulled off within the patient depths of a novel. The film, to me, established the sweeping romance of Clare Abshire and Henry DeTamble as the core of the story, using the other details of their life to support them. On the other hand, the novel used the minor details (everything from Clare's abusive boyfriend in her teen years to the conflict with Henry's suicidal ex-girlfriend to their similar taste in the Violent Femmes) as the center to build up their love story. That's why I felt the movie might fail because it could not possibly include all of these supporting events that really makes their story precious.First, let's get down to the casting, as I know that was a concern to fans of the book (and for me). When I had learned Erica Bana was playing Henry, I cringed. I'm sorry, he just doesn't do anything for me, and that receding chin sometimes becomes all I see when he speaks. However while watching the movie, he didn't annoy me as much as I thought. I'm not sure if he encompassed the nature of the "rebellious, intellectual librarian," but at least I was able to buy into a little bit of what made him captivating to Clare -- he was kind, attentive, and protecting. Speaking of which, I thought Rachel McAdams personified Clare very well, except I wish I could've seen more how she fell in love with him (when she was 6 and even again when she's in her early 20s). I thought those missing pieces of how she comes to love him would be resolved (like in the book), but there were only snapshots of her adolescence with Henry that revealed simply a superficial side to their romance versus a deep abiding love for the things he's done for her (again, this is all in the book). Ron Livingston as Gomez was a nice treat however. He carried the same slight arrogance as in the book, and I only wish there had been more of him in the movie.
The beginning is very hard to buy into, for both the book and the movie: McAdams is clumsily saying she can't explain things very well while we see Bana's bare butt scurrying along some wet alleyway. Many weird things do occur in this film, so if you're not open to that, you might wanna sit this one out. While the plot might not seem to go fast, the amount of information coming towards you feels like a lot to swallow. The book was the same way, but then hit a nice stride once the novel focused on Henry time traveling back to meet young Clare, cross-cutted with the events happening in the present. The film does reveal a couple scenes of Henry meeting Clare in the meadow, but I wanted it to keep going. That's what made the book so much fun to read! It was fine to return to the present and catch up on the drama of Clare's trouble with conceiving as she waits in frustration for her husband to come back to her, but then it would return to another time traveling moment. You really begin to feel Clare's frustration, whereas with the movie, you feel like you only have a summary of her feelings about Henry constantly time-traveling. You see Clare's frustation in the movie, but to me it felt very two-dimensional. While the movie did focus more on the present, it also had some very tender moments of Henry encountering his mother and meeting his daughter, Alba, which I am grateful for. But the film lacked a certain depth the book had: we see these events Henry experiences as he travels, but it feels as thought we're watching only the reflection on top of the water. We understand the scene has a deeper meaning, but it is not properly conveyed for the audience to grasp it to its full extent. And because of this, some of the scenes felt restless, like you know something big is about to happen but it never quite gets to that extraordinary reveal.
Along with my indifferent feelings towards some of the scenes, there were a few moments I have to mention that turned on my "Upset Fan Alarm." One that bothered me, yet I felt this small detail probably wouldn't make it to the movie, was this: SPOILER ALERT (highlight the section if you dare read)----------->The movie didn't have the balls to cut off Henry's feet after he gets hypothermia. That was such a devastating part of the book, and I think made Henry have more thoughts about his own mortality. They probably did it so beautiful Erica Bana wouldn't go through the rest of the film footless. Or they thought he might look funny....actually, he probably would. Alright, that was mean of me. I'm done now.<----------okay it's safe to read again. And alas, the ending. I had recently read a list of the Top 5 Scenes Time Traveler's Wife fans wanted in the movie. We got the scene with young Henry, Clare and Henry's meeting, Henry meeting Alba, and their wedding: the one thing missing was the ending. Well, I'll say this--the ending the film had was a scene in the book, but not the proper ending. While the film's ending was worthy of a few tears, the one in the book has far more of an impact and really brings closure.
BOTTOM LINE: I can respect the film for trying to rework certain scenes in order to convey information better, but at times the plot felt a little flaky when you knew it was supposed to have sustenance, and Henry and Clare's relationship seemed dense when they were trying to convince you there was more under the surface without much convincing evidence.
PROS
1. Ron Livingston - He added a snarky edge to the scenes he was in.
2. Old Henry's encounter with his mom - A really touching scene.
3. The wedding switcheroo - Fans of the book will understand.
4. Encounter with Alba
CONS
1. Restless scenes
2. Awkward pacing
3. Henry & Clare's relationship sometimes seemed hard to buy - Those sitting behind me in the theater thought so too. For some reason, a 40-year old man hanging out with a 6-year old girl is creepy in a movie, yet not so much in a book. Go figure.
RATING
1/2 Out of 5
No comments:
Post a Comment