why oh why do they have to make movies out of EVERY good book. I havent read this, its probably very good, but do you really think that you can cover 300+ pages of material into a 1-2 hour period of time effectively? It can be done, Ive seen it before (Lord of the rings) but as stated above, NOT with a crappy script. Nice work film brain

I have read The Time Travelers Wife, which is great by the way, and though I haven't seen the movie, from what I've heard, it butchers the book.
While reading the book I often felt strong emotion, and felt for the characters, who seemed like real people.
Its a great read even for those who aren't really interested in romance novels, and even though I didn't expect the movie to be good, I'm sad that yet another good book has been warped to movie form.

I have never even heard of this until now, but thanks to you I know to stay away from it. Nice review, as always.

I agree, I disliked Rachel McAdam's character severly, but Eric Bana was
great.

I did find it gently moving, because I actually cared about Henry, but
it was no where near as emotional as, say, The Green Mile.

So overall, it was good,
with brief flashes of brillance.

I liked the movie, but that's because I read the book.

The book is amazing; it stands as my absolute favorite. I do understand some of the shortcomings of the film (there are several parts where Eric Bana's acting is wooden, and that pissed me off because Henry is meant to be pretty charismatic).

Playing Devil's advocate here, because I have read the book several times, that book must have been EXTREMELY difficult for the screenwriters. The book itself switches first-person point-of-view between Henry and Clare enough times to make your head spin (I counted at least ten times in one chapter). Translating that to screen couldn't have been easy. Granted, the script wasn't the best it could have been, but at least it was an attempt.

I think this is one of those movies that requires having read the book to be fully enjoyed. Some people like that, some don't. I'm probably going to get labeled a fangirl because of this comment, but overall it was decent.

I don't disagree with you, the movie's not for everyone, just putting in my two cents.

i dont need to read this long ass review to know to stay away from this movie

I'm a big fan of this book. I watched the movie and knew the background of each scene. The problem was that if I hadn't read the book so many times, I would have either been lost or bored. The movie has some good moments and is filmed beautifully (the last scene in the movie "fixes" the ending of the book IMNSHO) but the movie is more of a Cliff Notes of the book.

The quandry of course is that the book has so much more room to explore the lives of these two people. The book is about two people and how over the course of their lives they fall in love and build a life together. The things like the first dates, the time in the meadow, Henry's boozing and womanizing in his 20s, all that is just touched upon.

But who'd want to sit and watch a movie for four hours?

What's missing is why these two love each other. We get the wedding and the arguments but we don't get why they put up with Henry's condition.

Good attempt and pretty to look at but your review is right. . . they told too much and showed little.

I thought'd you'd review District 9 or Inglourious Basterds. But I see you went somewhere else this weekend. Watch the movies I just mentioned btw. theyre awesome.

I'm not sure if by bolding Twilight you're trying to emphasize on it's "greatness" or utter lack thereof...

I haven't read the book, but the Coraline movie was very good.

The book was apparently REALLY good, I'm trying to find it but so far, no luck. My mom's been listening to the audiobook and piqued my interest with some scenes she'd listened to, so it figures when we go see the movie those scenes aren't in there! It was crappy, and I think it was written for those who had read the book, but it would still be crappy even then.

It wasn't horrible, but it sure as hell wasn't good. Do NOT go see this movie in theaters, and if you want to rent it, make sure you can rent it for free, so you won't be wasting any money on it. Go read the book instead, much much better, doesn't feel jumbled and has better consistency throughout. There's a lot of stuff in it that the movie chopped out, too, so I'm quite mad.

Well, they're making a tv show, so I think that they purposefully avoided anything interesting, so that they could save it for a couple of good episodes. I don't know for sure, it's just a guess.

I thought Inkheart and Half Blood Prince were good movies. As for Twilight the book was already bad in the first place.

"Henry survived due to time travelling out of the accident, first discovering the ability that he has gained from a rare gene disorder that causes him to involuntarily time travel."

lol wut

I mean seriously, that's just stupid. Tell me it was magic, or something, and I'll buy it, but a GENETIC disorder? Come on.

Also, if you ever see The Daily Show (I heard it does play in the UK, just maybe a few days late or so), you should check out Jon Stewart's interview with McAdams. It's pretty funny because she sort of spoils the entire movie, from how her husband travels into the future and sees his own death, to a younger version of her husband getting her pregnant. Stewart kept saying things like "You don't have to tell me this!" It was pretty amusing.

It's unfortunate, because before having seen any reviews, just the concept of a time traveler's wife was incredibly interesting to me. I thought it'd be all about a non-time-traveler does during a time traveler's escapades (also, I thought he wouldn't be forced to travel at random; that sucks). But oh well; if it's just some sappy romance where you never actually see anything, then forget it.

I'm just glad I never saw this.

I didn't even know this was based off a book, either. I just feel stupid for that. I'm just glad people think the book this waste of a movie is based off of is BETTER and MORE WELL THOUGHT OUT!

It's a shame Hollywood has to always make movies off of everything, especially books, ESPECIALLY TOP SELLERS.

Granted, there are some awesome books out there, regardless of generation (there are some great book-based movies out there in this generation as well, nostalgia whores who need to know this truth); I'm just glad, you, Film Brain, and anyone disappointed by this mess know this is an insult to a good book.

Like I said, I'm just glad I never saw it. Never was going to anyway... Besides, I hate romantic movies- they're for the weak of mind and spirit IMO...

Thank you.

Harry Potter rules, TWILIGHT SUCKS!!! Inkheart's okay. I've heard plenty good reviews on that movie and I so truly need to see it...

I havent seenthe movie yet, but Ill freely admitthat the book is the only piece of literature thats ever made me cry (Im a 30yr old guy raised on comics.) I was afraid they'd mess this up and miss the point.

To be fair in the book it doesnt explain what causes him to jump or why he stays in certain times certain amounts of time. But It's OK, because Henry neevr finds out! I dont mind something not explained ina first person narrative where the character never discovers whatcauses the problem either.

Unfortunately, the film is linear, not first-person.

I actually haven't seen Inkheart, but I heard it was crap. As for Half-Blood Prince, it was OK; not the worst in the franchise, but it made me feel kind of empty.

Didn't really care to see the movie, to me, the ads looked like 'Oh my goodness, you're magical. Let's make out now.'

Actually, this book, and the lead pairing as a little comparible to Edward and Belle from Twilight, on terms of logic and really defying what it means to trully make love work.

Great article.