Die Frau des Zeitreisenden

I had read the book three times when it first came out, so I was excited when I got tickets to an advance screening. I was just hoping they didn't ruin the book. I know films can't be like the books, so I carefully did not re-read it.

They did an awesome job with the film. They captured the story, the flavor, the essence of the book, even if they did have to leave some things out. I loved the girls playing Alba.

There was laughing at the funny parts and some crying at the sad. My sister loved it. She had no intentions of reading it and only went because I had tickets. She was sniffly when we left and now has the book.

Notice to guys who like blow em ups. This is a romantic chick flick! Though the one guy I had talked to in line was crying as we left. He did say he loved it.

I would have given it a nine if some of the scenes hadn't been filmed in the dark like a lot of Hollywood.

This was much better than expected. The premise seemed far-fetched, to put it mildly. But the movie worked on a number of different levels based on the screenplay, directing, beautiful cinematography, and acting, not just of the always captivating Rachel McAdams, but also the much underrated Eric Bana as the co-lead, and the rest of the supporting cast.

The basic plot is Eric Bana (Henry) is afflicted with being involuntarily sent through time. He has no control about the time or places where he is sent. At some point, he meets with Rachel McAdams (Clare), drops in and out of her life, they fall in love and marry. However, as one can easily imagine, the downsides of involuntary time travel takes its toll. The movie could have easily have spun out of control and ended up a total mess, but the movie actually works quite nicely.

The plot could be a collaborative effort of the late Rod Serling (of Twilight Zone fame) with bizarre, science fiction type plots and Nicholas Sparks, the author of countless sticky sweet love stories (i.e. – "The Notebook").

I liked this movie, but I realize this might not be everybody's cup of tea. I would say stick with it & you'll be glad you didn't give up & go see "Halloween II" across the hall (as I was tempted to do). I've seen them both. Believe me when I say "Time Traveler" is the better of the two.

Something I often find bothersome in 'time travel fiction' is that there is usually a large chunk of the storytelling dedicated to the tedium of explaining 'how' time travel works, particularly when time travel is merely a device to aid the storytelling. We don't really need to know the science behind it because, simply put, science can neither logically explain its paradoxical nature, nor prove or dispute its possibility. "The Time Traveler's Wife" never makes pretenses to the science behind it, rather it centers its focus on the story.

At the heart of this film is a love story and the complexities that people bring to their relationships. What I liked most was its metaphorical allusion to the distance in relationships and how the important people in our lives stay with us even after they are gone. The scenes between Henry and young Clare were especially moving because they took literally the notion of feeling like you have known someone your whole life. It's kind of like when you share stories from your past with friends and significant others, retelling them time and again until your experiences are indistinguishable from theirs, except in the case of Henry and Clare, the experiences are real if not linear.

Just go and watch it. Decide for yourself if you like it. Just don't dwell too much on the technicalities. After all, Scientific Theorists have been slamming their heads against the wall on the matter of time travel for centuries. Take the story for what it is and enjoy the ride.

I was a massive fan of the book and had been following the production of this movie for a long time anticipating the release date. I had set my expectations pretty low so as to not be disappointed and decided to just enjoy the film for what it was.

I was overjoyed by how true to the book the film stayed, only varying in a few unimportant places, the film dared to be as heart breaking and sad as the book and did not feel the need to justify the logistics of the time travel instead choosing to summarise it in the first scene.(People who feel this was not explained do not have the imagination needed to fully enjoy this film).

The ageing of Eric Bana's character was seamless and it was easy to tell whether he was a younger or older version of Henry and Rachel McAdams brought out the inner frustrations of Claire's character with a great sensitivity showing the difficulties of the relationship.

Overall, this film was not a let down to a lover of the book, I enjoyed it as an extension of the story of Henry and Claire and found the emotions real and well developed. A definite must-see for all fans and those who haven't read the book but who just enjoy a good love story!

When I entered this one, I thought it would be another Kate Hudson/Matthew McConaughey, Richard Gere/Julia Roberts,Diane Lane, wuvvy-duvvey-cutesy-wootsy boring predictable love movie.

I was completely wrong. We've all seen movies that involve time travel and this one is near the top.

It shows the reality of a relationship between two individuals who have to deal with the negative effects of time travel in a close relationship.

This movie had me near tears at the end, which is truly sad since I haven't cried since the movie Beaches.

The only thing I didn't like about this movie was that I found myself trying to figure out this mans time travel and if it made sense. There are a few loose ends left untied.

Other than that, the two leads were solid and the movie is entertaining. I wouldn't rush out to see it, but it is definitely worth renting.