snickers797

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 first read Pride and Prejudice when I was 11 years old and absolutely fell in love with its subtle humor and biting wit; not to mention the language and the carefully drawn characters. However, what I saw at the theaters presented no such picture. The dialogue was sloppy and unrefined, the characters poorly read (and cast), and the humor rather awkward. Having previously viewed the faithful 1995 Miniseries version of Pride and Prejudice, I was often distracted by the jarring gaps in the plot and its staggering underdevelopment. I've always enjoyed Keira Knightley's performances, but her acting felt rushed and, well, performed.

But the biggest annoyance of the film was the directing and cinematography of the shots. The director made overuse of long moving/panning shot which seemed completely out of place and made use of angles and framing that were unnecessarily peculiar in style.

It has not been one hour since I watched the movie in the theater, and I still can't help but shutter at the memory of it. Darcy was a joke, and by the end, the film dripped of repugnant cheese. I would have walked out of the movie had my shoe laces not entangled me to the seat.

Watch the 1995 Minseries people. Granted, it lacks pretty faces of the likes of Keira Knightley, Jena Malone, Matthew MacFayden, and Donald Sutherland and the overblown directorial style, but what it lacks in star power it makes up in acting ability and capable story telling. Although it's not completely lacking in the star attraction department; Colin Firth makes an incredible Mr. Darcy