Pop-Thoughts Film Review: The Time Traveler’s Wife

As an avid reader, particularly of popular fiction, I’m often skeptical and automatically pessimistic when a great book is made into a movie. The movie can never live up to the book, unless the book itself is particularly terrible (as was the case with The Devil Wears Prada). Readers of The Notebook might point to the film as a good adaptation, but as I haven't read the book, I can't say for sure.

Despite the fantastic trailer for The Time Traveler’s Wife—which, I might mention, made my friend cry every time she saw it—I had reservations about the movie itself. The book is one of the most lush, satisfying contemporary novels I have ever read, and while I don’t often tend to be interested in magical realism, this book felt, perhaps oddly, more rooted in the real world than the fantastical despite its main character being a time traveler. But enough about the book. What we really want to talk about is the adaption from page to film.

A book as complex as The Time Traveler’s Wife could never fully work on film. To capture every element, it would have to be a mini-series. There are so many elements that make the book good, so many stories that could never be included in a feature film. That being said, the screenwriters had to pick and choose carefully. And pick they did. This film is nothing but the skeletal story of the book. It feels hollow, and it was evident even to people who hadn't read the book that things are clearly missing from the film. There are fascinating sub-plots in the book, including two tales of unrequited love, suicide, and lots and lots of sex.

The measure of whether an adaptation is successful or not is if a film captures the essence of the book. The Time Traveler’s Wife is so unique in its tone and aura that one would expect the filmmakers could easily capture this through cinematography alone. But again, we have a half-baked result.

Having read the book and being such a fan, I still managed to be an objective viewer when I took my seat at the theater (despite the sticky floor and having to sit for two hours with my purse in my lap). I made the decision prior to entering that I would view the film apart from the book, knowing full well that it could never live up to the novel and that the filmmakers would be forced to cut out a lot of its elements. Knowing all the background information on the characters—who were well-captured individually by actors Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana despite their having zero chemistry as an on-screen couple—I was not confused as viewers who haven’t read the book would be (and as the Variety review noted last week). I did, however, leave the theater feeling unfulfilled as a moviegoer.

Cinematography is good, actors are good despite several awkward moments due to weak acting, and editing appeared seamless. The film as a whole is pretty, though not beautiful. The best word I can think to describe this is "vanilla." It's "beige." Not bad, but pretty plain. Overall, the film most certainly falls short of being a masterpiece, or even being good.

Final Decision: The trailer is better than the film (ouch). Save yourself the price of admission ($12.50 for us New Yorkers) and watch the trailer for free on the film’s website. If you want to watch the film, as it does have a certain entertainment factor, catch it on DVD in a few months.