Travel back in time and stick with the book

McAdams shines in the film adaptation of Audrey Niffenegger’s infinitely more enticing novel

By Zipporah Porton
Published: August 28th, 2009 | 4:30pm

When heading to the movies to catch the film version of a book you’ve already fallen in love with, it is best to go with minimal expectations. That was my attitude as I watched the adaptation of the much-beloved The Time Traveler’s Wife by Audrey Niffenegger. Though the film doesn’t live up to such a remarkably creative and well-written novel, it can still surpass the typical romantic date movie.

The Time Traveler’s Wife tells the story of time traveler Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana) and his relationship with the love of his life, Clare Abshire, played by a truly effervescent Rachel McAdams. When the two first meet, Clare is ecstatic because she has been waiting her whole life to meet the man that has been visiting her since she was a child. Henry is utterly confused because it was the future-version of Henry that paid Clare these visits, so though she knows everything about him, his present-self is meeting her for the first time. As the film goes on, the audience learns of Henry’s strange ability to travel through time, or rather the “disease” that causes him to bounce through time without a moment’s notice. Despite the pain that Henry’s condition causes Clare and the strain on their relationship, she is unable to imagine any other life than with Henry.

In general, the film is a bit on the sappy side; Kleenex will be required. The script, written by the king of sad romantic relationships Bruce Joel Rubin (Ghost, My Life), is serviceable, though at times the dialogue is unrealistic or is just there to serve a plot purpose. Director Robert Schwentke (Flightplan) does a fine job of putting together a film that isn’t difficult to follow, which could have happened with a story that skips around in time. The simple visual effects used to show Henry traveling work perfectly, and keep the film grounded in romance and away from science fiction.

The casting of McAdams in the title role is perfect. Clare could come off as a weak woman unable to make her own decisions without a man, but McAdams creates a character that is strong and admirable. Bana, on the other hand, fails to impress as Henry, and it is difficult to see why Clare is addicted to this man from the start.

One key difference between the film and the book is that in the novel, the question never emerges as to the validity of Henry’s situation. Niffenegger weaves a tale that is entirely believable, though of course the notion itself is bordering on ridiculous. The film does not successfully allow the viewer to suspend their disbelief, and the viewer is often left trying to figure out if the time line makes sense. Lastly, though the film shows a strong loving relationship between two people, in the end the characters neither learn nor grow in any sense. While the film presents an emotional, romantic ride, the question that remained in my mind at the end was, “What exactly was the point?”