I have to preface my thoughts on this film by saying that my eyes exploded in a huge allergic reaction during the second half of the film. Weirdly, even though I could barely see I liked the second half better but for a epic type romance there was something vital missing from the film- passion.
I am a huge fan of Rachel McAdams and like Eric Bana, but as a real lover of the book, I found the chemistry between McAdams and Bana sorely lacking. Granted this must not have been an easy book to adapt. It is the story of a guy with a gene anomaly which causes him to time travel regularly in different intervals. He shows up and meets Clare (McAdams) when she was a little girl and she of course, falls in love with him and waits for him until he enters her life at the right time for them to be together. Complicated, I know. But it really, really works in the ok and don’t take my word for it, it’s sold million of copies. I could be very forgiving if I would have felt some of the heat that McAdams had for Ryan Gosling in The Notebook but there was none of that here.
I think this film will have a hard time especially because it is opening so close to Julie & Julia and that has great word of mouth.
Rachel McAdams is an actress of great potential. I don’t think that any of the roles she has played have showcased her talent enough. I believe she has some great roles in her. Sadly, this is not one of them. But on a positive note there is nothing offensive in this film like a recent romantic comedy which will not be named, so if you are looking for something light…you might enjoy it.
PS- the two friends that I saw the movie with liked it much more than I did. One had read the book and one had not.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Agreed, Rachel McAdams is awesome but hasn’t been given the role of a lifetime that’ll really make her career explode (like Charlize Theron with “Monster”).
so sorry to hear you had an awful allergic reaction while watching the film!
I really didn’t care for the book. I thought it was poorly written. However, the movie was an improvement and I liked it.
However, I sensed somehting was missing, and Melissa really put her finger on it–there was a lack of chemistry and passion between the two leads. McAdams doesn’t spark the screen with Bana the way she did with Ryan Gosling in The Notebook. And that made the movie a little flat.
I hope McAdams gets a chance to take on roles with more depth and complexity.
I was alarmed that when we briefly see her naked in the film, she is so thin! I could see her spine! I guess these actresses have to be extremely thin to get work. Sad.
There is a creepyness about the man going to the woman when she is a girl. In the book, it’s worse. He waits to deflower her at 18, then time travels back to her 30-something body and is sad about how her body aged. He keeps going back to her “innocent” time and is a reminder that men like to go back to pre-husband and house times when Marge Simpson didn’t have demands. Yet..the woman character doesn’t get to go back when he was “fresh.” There is a subliminal sexism in all that. How women lose their innocence and it’s a drag when obligations and worries come in and they are somehow associated with wife.
Didn’t read the book and based on the trailers, I’ll wait for this film to hit OnDemand.
Wow, Debbie, you hit the nail on the head. I didn’t read the book, never heard of it, but got the creeps watching the film thinking: in WHAT universe it it acceptable for a naked adult man hiding in the bushes to yearn for the company of a little girl to the point he repeatedly visits her? They didn’t even play it for comedy.
And if you look (just a tiny bit) further into the other representations in the film, what you get here is an interesting metaphor of how men can’t “stay put.” They can’t help themselves and are seemingly propelled by their very DNA to go off on primordial adventures, only returning to have take comfort in the woman’s offerings of warmth, food, and sex. They they’re off again leaving the woman to clean up after their mess. She seems to take it in stride, forgiving all sins and absences, loving him never the less. Only in this scenario, she is beginning to evolve to the point where her own body knows not to get saddled with his progeny and rejects the pregnancies (presumably, his sons), knowing he won’t be around to help. Only when the fetus is female (the more adaptable, resilient sex), does the baby survive to term. In the end, the woman only remembers the best of times and enjoys “him” most when she conjures up his mere ghost in her mind. Sadly though, she continues to do his laundry for all eternity.
Where are the stories written by women/about women that give the woman AGENCY? When are we going to see women who don’t sit around waiting for men??? I wanted to scream out loud in the theater during this one.
I so agree. Like both actors a lot. No chemistry at all and that made the film unbearable. It was so disappointing due to such a wonderful book.
Amy– didn’t the argument here just go in a circle, or is it just me? What “wonderful book”? He grooms her to be his wife, he pops back to see her “fresh” younger self, she (stupidly) has half a dozen miscarriages to fulfill a blind biological imperative, and then she sits around for eternity waiting for that “one last visit.” If this is “wonderful” literature, pass the pointy sticks. Got me a few eyeballs in need of poking….