I really don't know why this movie was made. And I really can't believe it's still playing in the theaters. The Time Traveler's Wife, which is based on Audrey Niffenegger's best-seller, did not succeed as a romance film nor did it succeed as a sci/fi film. Maybe if it hadn't tried to be both, it would've succeeded at one...Maybe.
The story revolves around Clare (played by Rachel McAdams) and Henry (played by Eric Bana). Henry is a time traveler (due to some kind of genetic anomaly) and Clare, who first met Henry when she was a child, falls in love with him despite his condition and eventually marries him. The movie spans over many years of their lives together and as the plot unfolds we, the audience, are shown clips of the past (in the hopes I'm assuming that we'll piece together why the two fell in love in the first place) and are shown the struggles the two face in their present life together. -Struggles which include: will Henry be present for the marriage ceremony? (seeing as he has no control over when he leaves or where he evaporates to). Will he be around for Christmas this year? How does Clare cope with waiting for his return? And whether or not the two of them can produce a 'time travelling love-child'.
This movie was so wrong on so many levels. First, I still don't know why Clare fell in love with a man who's never around when she didn't strike me as the 'independent woman' sort. Aside from getting to see Eric Bana naked a lot (he always loses his clothes when he travels) he was a very serious and somber man. Clare is in love with him the first time we meet her and it seems only she knows why. Granted, I guess time travel can be a very serious business. But it's a business the movie never explains. There's a geneticist (played by Stephen Tobolowsky ) who apparently is there to help Henry and find out some answers. But after the doctor conducts one test, we never find out any real results nor is it ever discussed again. Instead, we watch as various Henrys from various times pop in and out of Clare's life. She never seems to know when he'll leave or appear again and yet she still manages to have clothes waiting for him in various locations. Lucky for him, I guess.
The love story wasn't convincing and the time travel parts weren't nearly as confusing as they should be. Not once did the film address whether or not Henry affects the present by revisiting the past. We are told that even though he can revisit certain places time and time again (I can't help the pun) he can't change the course of bad events that have happened. Apparently, he's unable to get there just in the 'nick of time'. Even Jean Claude Van-Dame's movie Time Cop addressed the possible confusing affects of time travel. The fact that this one just decided to ignore it was more than disappointing. (The fact that I've had to mention a Jean Claude Van-Dame movie as a means of comparison of something that is better is embarrassing).
I have not read Audrey Niffenegger's book but after seeing the movie version, I can only hope that many more questions are answered. For instance; how did time traveling affect Henry's childhood? Why is he always getting shot at or beat up when he travels? What does Clare really do for a living? Do Henry and Clare have any real friends? And I sincerely hope one important question is answered ...when Clare claims she had no free-will in deciding whether or not to spend her life with Henry, what the heck is she talking about?
No comments:
Post a Comment