Deseret News | Movie review: 'Time Traveler's' for hopeless romantics only

Reader comments
Film review: 'Time Traveler's' for hopeless romantics only

Uncle Rico | 4:43 p.m. Aug. 13, 2009

Time travel is great. Only if the coach would have put me in, I would have been a state champion. I will not see this movie.

Linds | 7:11 a.m. Aug. 14, 2009

Read the book, Jeff. They are just following the book.

Anonymous | 7:12 a.m. Aug. 14, 2009

Sorry Jeff, you didn't review this movie, but Christy who ever you are

Comments continue below

rdha | 11:05 a.m. Aug. 15, 2009

Looks kinda interesting, but there's other movies I would rather see and pay money to see before Time Traveler's Wife. Not in the mood for that.

Question | 8:41 p.m. Aug. 15, 2009

does this mean that our birthday suits is still the best thing to wear 24/7?........LOL!!

Jake | 10:16 a.m. Aug. 17, 2009

I enjoyed the film. I agree it followed the book so closely that it left the actors little time to flesh out the character's emotions, but still a good time at the movies.

Intriguing story and great performers (who can pass up Rachel McAdams?) and even Eric Bana in what is surely one of his best performances.

Not a flawless film, but nevertheless a good one. ***out of ****.

And yes, I read the book.

K | 8:15 p.m. Aug. 17, 2009

Read the book. (going to the gym..)

Henry runs as much as possibly because it help keeps him from jumping around in time (as well as love making) and it's helpful to be in shape cause when he appears suddenly clothingless in certain places he has to run for his life. It relaxes him. It's often when he feels stressed that he bounces about in time. That's why certain years he does it more often.

I can't wait to see the movie. I hope they stay pretty close to the book. All that jumping about was confusing enough in the book. If they start changing some of the order in the movie I'll be lost.

jeff | 3:45 p.m. Aug. 19, 2009

you would have to be really bored to like this movie. Slow,slow, slow! My wife and I like the romance movie genre but this one we found hard to watch, no, very hard to watch.

suz | 12:40 p.m. Aug. 21, 2009

This movie really stunk. No plot, no story. It was all about the huge faces on the screen. It is a very visual movie, I like something with a plausible story and plot which is MIA in this movie.

Mike Johnson Fallon NV | 12:04 a.m. Aug. 23, 2009

I am not into romantic movies and I had no idea what it was. I was there to see Harry Potter, but right below it said "Time Traveler" and nothing lse and it was about to start and Harry Potter wasn't going to for half an hour. So I took a chance and it ended up being better than I expected.

Very intriguing story.

Roger | 11:53 p.m. Aug. 28, 2009

Yuk. Lots of sighing and soulful looks (instead of conversation) -- which is why the relationship in the movie is never plausible. The male lead is cross between Richard Hatch and a low-budget Richard Gere, which is why he isn't watchable. And speaking of time travel, this movie seemed to run for days -- and when it ended, it was great to see it was actually only five or six hours.

RealityEscaper | 10:29 a.m. Sept. 8, 2009

Why do most movie critics (this one in particular) insist on rating a movie based on its reality factor? Or whether things are logical or explained fully? Movies are our fantasy escape. If we wanted reality, we wouldn't go to the movies full of reality and logic - there's too much of it on a daily basis.

Anonymous | 12:08 p.m. Sept. 21, 2009

I read the book, and have yet to see the movie. Do they clean it up a little, or is it as obscene as the book? Loved the story, though.

Allison | 10:52 a.m. Oct. 15, 2009

The book is not obscene. I can't believe someone would actually think that. I will see the movie and judge for myself, but the reviews here make me think it will be like every movie that's based on a book. Disappointing.

Samantha Johnson | 12:11 p.m. Oct. 24, 2009

I agree that the book was not obscene! And Think only a prude would think it was. It was a fabulous book, I'm sure to hate the movie just because it can't be anywhere near as good as the book. But I can't wait to see it anyway! As for Jeff... he hates everything. It's not surprising he would hate this too.

jp | 1:29 p.m. Nov. 6, 2009

I have to admit, this was one dumb movie - is Hollywood running out of ideas now! How absolutely stupid.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.

Movie Info

Rated PG-13 for nudity, sex.

Cast: Rachel McAdams, Eric Bana, Ron Livingston, Jane McLean

FIND LOCAL MOVIE SHOWTIMES