Comments on: The Time Traveler’s Wife Trailer Arrives… and I Am Not Pleased.

By: Livia

Livia — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:41:40 +0000

I saw this film The Time Traveler’s Wife two times in the theatre and it was actually great both times since it is my favorite movie this year. I am in the process of reading the novel by Audrey Niffenegger and the book is quite a few changes in the movie but Henry the time traveler always time travels and it’s quite confusing the the film helps a lot of the plot part of it.
Rachel McAdams {Clare Abshire} and Eric Bana {Henry DeTamble} acts excellent in this film. This is a great movie and the actors did swell in this film.
I am planning on finishing the book and seeing the movie again when it comes out on DVD in a few months!
By the way, this film is rated PG-13 for thematic elements, brief disturbing images, nudity and sexuality, there was some swearing in this film that I noticed, and I think it was perfectly rated from the Motion Picture Assossication of America {MPAA}.

By: Sylvia

Sylvia — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:56:23 +0000

this movie sucks it reminds me of my exhusband his always in and out of jail, i sit at home loyal waiting on him to come home for few months then go back in again, the story repeats over and over, am glad is over i finaly gave him the boot.

By: Kit

Kit — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:27:43 +0000

I completely agreed with Erika here, on her original post. In fact, the only reason I found this blog at all was because I saw the trailer myself when it came out, closed the window halfway because I was so disgusted, and just recently had the balls to go back and finish the damn thing, just so I can at least say I am justified in hating it. And then I promptly Googled a general dissatisfaction, and arrived here.
Seriously? I couldn’t have said it better myself.
To those who HAVEN’T read the book, and/or thought the minor details weren’t important? If you’re going to make an adaptation of an amazing book with a huge fanbase, don’t half-ass it. The red hair bit defines Clare’s persona, as it somewhat speaks for her character, in a very subtle but noticeable way. Brown hair? Great, now she’s just any other chick.
I’m not even that hung up about the hair, as, if the acting and directing goes right (and script-writing..) then it won’t be an issue. I also know that trailers will never be cut so as to please the fans, but even so.. the way the dialogue is spoken? It’s like seeing those annoying ditzes who always end their sentences with question marks when talking.. and THAT’S the movie Clare. How freaking effed up is that??
Henry beefed up: agreed. He’s an effing librarian, for God’s sake. If I wanted a picture-perfect movie couple, I would’ve gone on to watch, I don’t know.. something with Pitt and Jolie. Let’s consider this: plotwise, Henry is a middle-aged librarian who can time-travel. When the hell does he get the time to go hit the gym 5 days a week, 2-3 hours a day? Because if you look at Bana’s build.. THAT’S what it is.
Finally, the most insulting thing to me is simply that there is no chemistry between the pair. I see a lot of memorable lines said with a lot of cheese, yes, and a sort of melting look in the eyes.. and that’s just mostly McAdams. It’s acted out in a very shallow, very typical interpretation, and could easily have been tweaked to be better. It spells bad directing to me, and the sense of a love that transcends time is completely gone. That said, like Erika, I CAN find it in myself to go see it.. but the trailer has almost certainly doomed it for me. Not that I was expecting much to begin with, but it would’ve been nice to have been proven wrong.
Thanks again for the original entry, which I still completely agree with.

By: Angela

Angela — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:03:21 +0000

I am a BIG book junkie. I LOVE to read! There have been a LOT of trailers that show you sceens that are not even in the movie (visa versa) I read the comment mentionig a Stephen King flm. Do you NOT remember that Stephen King made an apperance in almoust ALL of the movies?… Also, on that subject, use Delorice Clabourn as an example of how the most discriptive parts of the book are replaced with a more “delacete” way to please yet scare audidances all around. As you can tell I am also a movie junkie too. So when I read The Langaliers, Stephen King, and then immediatly saw the movie, I found that the book and the movie almost COMPLETELY matched WORD FOR WORD!!! Boring! I look foward to the movie and see just how much was changed besides hair color and being “beefy”.A Movie should portray the novel. NOT match it in it’s entirerty.What would be the point of both reading a well writen novel,and seeing a movie that can change or even have better things in it? Their would be no “Hollywood!” Do not worriy Annie. I think that trailers are just a way of getting the non readers out to the movie, and for all of the readers when they see it to go and read your novel. Think of it as a win win situation.

By: raych

raych — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:37:36 +0000

The only part of the trailer that looks interesting and not schmaltzy is the part where Claire’s all ‘What do you want to talk about? How BAD IT FEELS to sit here and wait for you?’ because the rest is 100% twee. I’m hoping they shoehorned all the romancey bits into the trailer and that the movie has more actual tension.

By: Red

Red — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:21:03 +0000

This trailer has piqued my curiosity, I must say. But, for the time being I won’t read the book. I saw the movie “Dune” before I read that book. I had liked the movie so much, I was inspired to take the time with the classic tome. There were some plot keys that were left out of the movie which helped me understand why the Dune series fans were pissed, which I’m sure helped cause the movie to flop at the box office, so much bad word of mouth and all.
Just because of all the flap here from TTTW book fans, I’ll probably wait until the movie comes to disc before I see it, cuz I’m a sci-fi buff; though not too crazy for romances, I did enjoy “The Fountain” (on DVD, never read the book). Movies are too expensive an entertainment pass time to risk wasting money on a real stinker; and now that I have a 16×9 HDTV, a blue-ray player and surround sound, I’ll be taking that risk even less often.
I thought Eric Bana was great in Star Trek…you couldn’t even tell it was him! He acts a good baddie, he surely wasn’t wooden in that part, he probably passed all his gas ;p. And I thought Troy was okay…never read “The Iliad”.
Mostly, I’m a very forgiving viewer because I love the medium, but I always keep this caveat in mind: “It’s only a movie”…so ‘caveat emptor’, everybody.

By: Catherine

Catherine — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:59:54 +0000

I have not read this book, but based on the trailer I would see this movie. I have read the above posts and, correct me if I’m wrong, the trailer showed Clare with red hair as a child and it appeared she also had red hair in early adulthood in another scene. If this feature of her character is as important as posted then I think they have it covered. As I’ve said, I haven’t read the book but I sure will now!

By: Lucas

Lucas — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 01:17:22 +0000

I haven’t read the book and will wait until after I see the movie. Bottom line: Is the movie entertaining and memorable on its own.

By: Peyote Sky

Peyote Sky — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:34:29 +0000

Yes, we all kinda wish there was more real good sci-fi stuff being made but writers today don’t have much access to the great psychedelics of a couple of decades ago and after all this banter about THE TIME TRAVELERS WIFE who would skip seeing this now? ~ In fact it looks to me like a well balanced movie and maybe even better than most today ~ “12th Monkey” (or whatever that Bruce Willis movie was) could have used a little more romance ~ and so even if this is “just another silly love song” I personally am hyped already ~ ps ~

By: Locke Peterseim

Locke Peterseim — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:57:17 +0000

Tornado Bay said: ” I can still recall how shocked I was when I saw “The Shining” in film….the end totally different than that Stephen King portrayed in the novel.”
Ah yes, but that kinda makes a different point, doesn’t it? That films can differ greatly from the book they were based on and STILL be a great FILM. Kubrick’s Shining is a terrific film on its own–the Steven Weber made-for-TV version of The Shining that came along 15 years later? Much more faithful to the book, but not so much a cinematic achievement.
And yes, as a life-long LOTR fan, when I first saw Fellowship, part of me balked at “sacred” things from the text that were changed. Needless to say, I got over it… LOL
And MartyAnne, I think we’re going to have to have a full-blown, all-out, no-holds-barred Dune discussion one of these days… my Tivo grabbed the Lynch Dune over the weekend (the 2-hour version, not the 4-hour) and I got sucked into watching it last night for the first time in about 20 years. (I’ve still never seen the 4-hour version). Now I want to rewatch the Sci-Fi version again, and re-read the four main books… so maybe one of these days, perhaps linked to some casting and production news on Peter Berg’s NEW version of Dune, we can have a Dune fest and discuss the merits and failings of all the versions–a perfect example of how different film adaptations of a sci-fi book can get different things write and wrong. And Jason can jump in and defend the Lynch one!