First of the movie's action scence were worrible, and the intelligance of the special military units that fights them are rediculously stupied. everyone knows about zombies, i mean seriously its not that hard to figure out that is plastering it in the chest with bullits does not stop it shot it in the bloody brain. THAT WORKS OFR ANYTHING, in the head and its dead. and for the ending my GOD could they have made it any worse?


The movie is good and the some of the plot is well written. The fact is that only 10% of the story itself match the game. The sound and music don't even correct and this doesn't give the audience an eerie feeling of being in the movie.

The effects are good, especially at the part when the laser beam starting to move, down and up or in the middle, now, that's something. Other than that, the story has same introduction and ending with the past zombie movie.

By the way, where is the puzzle, doors, small and smelly hallway, zombie lying around or grenade launcher, ammo. It is advisable to have all that stuff in this movie, then RE can be graded as class A pictures.


I am an avid player of the "Resident Evil" video game and I have to say they did an excellent job making the movie from the games. A lot of people who play the games may be disappointed because the movie isn't 100% like the game. Well all I have to say to that is "GET OVER IT"! The movie was fantastic and Milla Jovovich was terrific. I hope enough people go and see this so they will make a sequel. I would be disappointed if people didn't go and see this movie just because its based off a video game. That would be a mistake!!


This film was absolutely horrible. I rarely write any reviews, but this was the absolutely worse film I have seen in years. It made Mission to Mars look like an epic. The film is just nonsense action followed by nonsense action. None of the characters are ever developed, they try but the actors obviously don't know what they were supposed to be doing, so the audience never figures it out. Certain plot elements like the zombies completely surrounding them just disappear after a while and noone seems to notice. They have the typical problem that bad horror films have of inconsistency. Sometimes, one thing will kill a monster and in a different scene, someone does the same thing to the monster 25 times and it hardly flinches. I guess it was supposed to be a prequel for the video games, but even with that it seemed unfinished at all levels. I was a little tired before going to this film and got myself awake early in the film and watched it. I wish I had just fallen asleep and had some productive time for my 5 bucks.


Being a fan of action, sci fi and even (good) zombie movies I found this movie vastly overrated. The action is nearly non existant, the sci fi was thin and stretched but the zombies were just ok. That majority of this movie is movie is cliche after cliche and you almost always know whats going to happen next. Its pretty obvious who will survive the whole ordeal right from the begining, and who the 'secret bad guy' is amongst the team. There are also some major holes, like there is a point where everybody is surrounded by zombies right when they first get attacked, then the scene changes and some of the team are just running, wow, I guess the zombies just let them by eh? Or I love the fact that these people come back to the team later on in the movie and yet again, didn't have to deal with the dozens zombies they had to walk through to get back to their team (which you hear hitting the door when thye close it).

If you're desperate for a zombie movie, I guess its worth a rental, or maybe you're a huge fan of the Resident Evil games, but otherwise I can't even recomend it for rental... much less the price of a movie ticket.


Zombies, rabid canines, bad acting, oh my!! Another example of Hollywood taking a do-able script and running it through the meat grinder. I can't believe that people would show up to the premier of a film like this and take credit for being in it; much less be proud of the film. There were however some cool effects, made me leave hoping that artificial intelligence remains just an idea. Does make you wonder what goes on at our secret government labs??? This film is a rental, save your $$$ and wait till it comes out on video, that way at least you can drink a beer on your couch while you ponder actors getting paid to act this bad....


I gave this movie a 9, but I don't rate movies in the usual fashion. I don't think horror movies should be rated against all other types, just themselves. It's a much more raw form of entertainment and it often fails to deliver. I think the director, Paul Anderson, summed it up effectively in this quote, "We tried to put into the movie that constant sense of dread and foreboding. As you play the game, as you're walking around, you're terrified as to what might happen next. That's the kind of tone of the movie." He is correct. I do not hang onto people during movies, yet I had my husband's left arm in a death grip for more than half of the flick. I may be biased in that I feel there is no other concept scarier than zombies-beings whose ONLY objective is to kill you by eating you. Very loudly. Ewww. I have never played the games, since I'm a chicken when it comes to horror games, and my brother had. I asked him what the plot was to get a feel for whether or not it was an accurate depiction. He had very VAGUE ideas about the plot. I was able to fill in the blanks. I know more than he does because I believe Anderson set out to clear some things up. I believe it only makes the movie better. Sure there are one-liners that aren't stellar, but it IS horror. You have to expect a little cheese with your flick. I honestly don't think the ending could've been any better. I was very entertained. If you check out my other reviews though, I'm no major critic. I go to the movies to be entertained, and I usually pay matinee price, as I did that day. I can't say I would've loved it as much if we paid 6 more bucks to get in. As I always say, sit back and relax. It's just entertainment.


A very good film worth watching and recommending. Although it's low on suspense, the acting by Laura Leighton makes up for it. Her role as Newsreporter Gerry Millar is one that makes the movie. She steals the scene everytime she appears. Who knew that she was also pretty as a blonde!


The movie is OK: Bogdanovich knows how to direct a thriller, although his best work was "Noises Off...". Scott Glenn is perfect: nice, beautiful and very, very expressive: my favourite actor!!! Laura Leighton is pretty and nice.


Well, what a waste of 90 minutes. Some of the worst acting you would ever want to see (particularly the waitress who was Peralta's girlfriend - this would be an example of overacting at its absolute worst) allied to inept, wooden screenwriting. Its sole redeeming feature is a nice twist in the story but the ending is lame. If you have anything better to do dont bother watching this movie.


This movie is an utter delight to watch. I have probably seen it a dozen times, and I never get tired of it. Everything about it is perfect: it's well-directed, well-acted, beautifully filmed, has great music, and the script and story are wonderful.

Agneiszka Holland does an outstanding job directing this film. Each character is separate and unique; each one has little personality quirks that makes it seem real. Just about every scene in the movie includes children, animals, or both -- which must have been a nightmare to coordinate. Ms. Holland pulls it off without a hitch. Everything melds perfectly, and we are transported to a distant place and time, and fall in love with real, human characters.

The primary three characters in this story -- Mary Lennox, Colin Craven, and Dickon -- are all children, played by actors who are around 10 years old. Ordinarily having one child in a movie is difficult enough, but again, somehow they pull it off. All three kids -- especially Kate Maberly -- do a fine job of acting, and they are quite credible. Kate is simply divine as Mary Lennox, and Heydon Prowse was a good counter-point to her as Colin.

The story is touching and charming, and I think you'd have to be almost inhuman not to have a tear in your eye by the end of it. I absolutely fell in love with these children, and came to care very much about their characters. The "secret garden" really does seem to be a magical place (and I will say no more about it, since otherwise that would spoil things), and at the end I found myself wishing I could go and visit it first-hand. The accompanying music is wonderful -- I find myself humming it for days and days after watching it.

In short, everything comes together to make this film a masterpiece. It is easily one of the 10 or 12 best movies ever made, perhaps *the* best movie ever made. I love it so much that I went out and bought the DVD of it, even though I'd seen it 8 or 10 times already. If you have not seen it I give it my highest possible recommendation. My score: 10/10.


While I have called The Secret Garden a family film, that doesn't mean it's just for children. It is a film for all ages, and sure to be enjoyed by all of them, too. A vivid and affecting film, it's got many things going for it: mesmerizing cinemetography and time-lapse photography, a good music score and script, breathtaking sets, wonderful direction, great acting, even gorgeous flowers! Agneiska Holland does a great job at bringing out all the subtle little points and details in the story and great performances from her young cast, particularly from Kate Maberly as Mary. Heydon Prowse is good, too, as Colin, and so is Maggie Smith as Mrs. Medlock, the frusterated, overprotective housekeeper who seems to be mean, but really is only doing what she thinks best. One of the few films I've seen that I can call perfect with conviction; definitely should be seen and appreciated.


The Secret Garden is a rare treat where in the screenwriter and director actually understand their source, The Secret Garden by Frances Hogsden Burnett, and make a translation to the screen that not only captures the essence of the book but enhances the story as well. Too often directors spoil the story with their own self-interested spin (Little Big Man and Chocolat come immediately to mind)but here is a jewel that leaves the viewer saying "That was as good as the book." A genuine triumph.

The cast is outstanding, the children in particular, Kate Maberly as Mary Lennox above all. Even to the most minor extra everyone brings a smooth and compelling reality to the story.

However, the real star is director Agnieszka Holland. Against a challenging climate ( a rainy location) she manages to create a movie with a touching commentary on how children can literally change the world. Her insightful grasp of the themes of isolation, growth and rejuvenation, the need for a balance between nurture and allowable risk are all managed through the controlling metaphor of a garden. The artful rendering of these literary themes are what many directors apparently find most challenging ( I'm looking at you Arthur Penn)and generally blissfully ignore them compensating by glib insertions, extra action or clumsy sentiment. Not so here.

Not only is her focus exemplary but the photography is amazing. The interplay of light and dark, the time elapse photos of clouds rolling and flowers emerging all set to beautiful music captivate the viewer. The rainy weather was not shunned but used to fullest effect. I can only imagine the discipline it must have taken to wait for the sun to peep out from the clouds and then roll film hoping that the cast can pull off the shot before the light changed and a second take became a long wait. Fortunately all are up to the task and the film, the final scene in particular, results in a brilliant piece of motion picture art.

The 1993 version of The Secret Garden is a must for every family film collection, one the parents and kids can enjoy for its sophistication or simply for the great way in which this timeless classic is retold.


This is one of those rare films that you recognize as a classic as you are watching it. This movie is virtually perfect in almost every way, and I doubt if it will soon be displaced as the definitive version. One aspect of this film which I loved was Andrew Knott as Dickon, who ultimately sublimated his love for Mary to help Colin in the grand tradition of the English Hero - the common man. As in the Lord of the Rings, it is not a Jedi Knight, or a superman or muscleman or gun-slinging cowboy who is the hero, it is one of the common folks who rises to the occasion when greatness is demanded by the times and situation. As did Sam Gamgee, the Hero of the LOTR, so does Dickon stand out as an almost mythical personification of love and sacrifice for the good of others with no thought of recompense. This is what I love about classic English novels, how the average guy can change the world, if he loves it enough. Wonderful stuff.


Once in a while something excellent comes along that adds to one's life in unexpected ways.

As a single father of two children, boy and girl, I look far and wide for movies that will allow me to provide good, wholesome family time...without the fear of foul language issuing forth, foul gestures, or all-too-typical South Central L.A. ghetto demeanor being exhibited by punkish personalities. And unfortunately too many Hollywood child actors are nowadays forced to lower their personal ethics for inappropriate movie roles in our never ending averaging-down of America.

The Secret Garden dismisses the need to add token actors of every type (a.k.a. Disney's last unbelievable rendering of Annie - TV 1999), race and sexual dysfunction to it's cast. Movies once were special beautiful places where the best actors were chosen for the part, and where viewers could easily lose themselves and for a short time become something in their mind's eye that was wonderful and magical. This is such a film. It's cast is well chosen for the story, not for current day hypocrisy. The Secret Garden allows viewers to immerse in a world larger than themselves ease and without having to keep saying...now why is THAT person in the movie...or why does THAT person have to keep making obscene gestures or engage in a constant flow of obscene sexual double-entendres?

This movie is pure of heart. It is one of one of Hollywood's finest creations.

Kate Mayberly as Mary Lennox is convincing. Her entry into the film is as a 10 year old girl who is catered hand and foot, literally, bathed and dressed by Indian nannies, then ignored by her parents. She grew to feel pampered, unloved and unwanted, and without the training to even dress herself. This is a sobering cameo to any parent, of how not to 'raise' a child.

The Secret Garden has been re-made many times, in books, in the theatre, in movies...and several reasons for the sudden death of Mary's parents are provided. The manner of their death is utterly unimportant, for it is the rest of the movie in which the magic of love and acceptance blossoms, and the viewer's anticipation grows as surely as does Mary's own heart and personal demeanor, and as a perfect reflection of the new growth of her formerly abandoned and neglected aunt's garden.

Kate Mayberly is beautiful. She is an exceptionally talented young actress.

My family has enjoyed shedding a few tears along with her character, Mary Lennox during the many times we've viewed The Secret Garden, and we have learned a bit more about the value of caring...and about the power of love.

To anyone considering purchasing The Secret Garden as a family film, do it. There are no downsides here, no parts where a parent has to cover his child's eyes or ears.

The Secret Garden is the perfect family film.


I first saw The Secret Garden over the Christmas period a few years ago, but didn't really see it for the beautiful film it is untill a viewing or so later. I have it on video, and watch it whenever I need cheering up. It is one of those rare films that I can really say is flawless. The cast are superb. The three children particulerly standing out. The scenery is breathtaking, and the score beautiful. It makes you feel that wonderful things can happen in life, and that you can make them happen. In a time when more and more films are relying on special effects rather then a good script and a decent storyline, this is one that film makers everywhere should take note of. A rare little gem of a film that should put a smile on the face of even the most cynical movie goer.


'Secret Garden' is a classic to watch anytime you want. The atmosphere in this movie is perfectly portrayed as being sinister and dark and I remember being 8 watching this movie and feeling the oppressive feeling of Lord Craven's mansion. Mary Lennox is a 10 years old English girl who was raised in India. She didn't like to live in India, but the thing she hated the most was the fact that her parents were selfish and never cared about her. One day, an Earthquake in India makes a big devastation and many kids stay orphan,including our lead character Mary Lennox. She is sent to England, to live in her uncle's mansion,since he is now her legal guardian. Mary, which is a cold,bitter,annoying girl who hates to be touched and with lots of angry inside her, meets Martha, a cool girl and servant who works in the mansion and treats Mary very nice( the opposite of Mrs. Medlock,the governess) and her brother Dickon, a sweet boy who makes friendship with the animals. One day,Mary discovers in her aunt's room a key. But it's not an ordinary key, is the key from the secret garden, a garden who once was the place where her aunt always loved to stay and that now is locked since she died. Mary ask Dickons to help her to restore the garden,but they both make it a secret. In the meanwhile, Mary meets her cousin Colin, a sick and spoiled boy who stayed all his life in bed, since everybody always believed he would die very young. It's beautiful to see the changes of Colin and Mary: He learns to be more confident and less pessimist, changing the paranoia of being all the time confined in his bedroom because of 'spores', to go to the garden and try to walk again. And Mary, who once was so bitter, learn how to be a kid and to smile.


Ah, the many memories I have with The Secret Garden, I have to admit it, when I was a kid, I had this group of girlfriends and we always thought it would be so cool if we discovered a garden just like the children in this movie did. As silly as that sounds, the movie really got our imaginations going. Of course you grow up and you forget a little bit about the movies that you used to watch as a kid. But I was looking at the five dollar bin at Wal Mart and found The Secret Garden, I figured since I hadn't seen it in a while that I could check it out once again and still I think I have a special love for this magical story about bringing life back into a dead world.

The recently-orphaned Mary Lennox travels from her home in India to her uncle Archibald Craven's hundred-room house, Misselthwaite Manor. Mary, materially spoiled but emotionally neglected by her late parents, is rather unpleasant and unhappy in her new surroundings. Martha, a Yorkshire girl working as a maid, and her brother Dicken, a boy who can talk to animals, befriend and help her to heal and grow. She discovers her deceased aunt's secret garden, which has been locked for ten years and enlists Dickon to help her bring it to life. Hidden away in the gloomy house is Mary's cousin Colin, who has been treated all his life like a fragile, sickly invalid. This exaggeration has augmented what smaller problems he did have, turning him into a demanding, short-tempered, helpless boy. Mary, defying the orders of Mrs Medlock, discovers Colin and is taken aback by his disposition, but reaches out to him anyway. Soon Colin, Mary, and Dickon all spend their time in the secret garden. They perform magic, and make the garden live again.

The Secret Garden is always going to hold a special place in my heart, I absolutely adore this film and it brings back so many wonderful memories from my childhood. The children that they found to play Mary, Dicken and Colin were absolutely perfect and were great actors actually, I'm surprised they didn't move onto bigger things in their careers, but they had great chemistry and really brought the movie to life. The settings are gorgeous, the garden that the children created was so lovely and reminds me about all the wonderful things that spring brings, life. If you haven't seen The Secret Garden, I highly recommend that you do, it's a very special film that I'm sure you'll fall in love with as well.

8/10


I have heard of The Secret Garden, it is based on a book and there have been many adaptations of it, but this is probably the greatest, it is a tale about a girl from India who comes to stay at her uncle's mansion and discovers a secret garden and meets a sick child.

The acting is quite superb I think that they are all English actors and Maggie Smith is excellent as ever, but the real star is the little girl as she is very good, and the ending is the best I have ever seen, a really happy ending.

I am more into my comedy and action films but this is a real feel good film for all the family I gave it 10 out of 10.


(POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD)Ninety years ago Frances Hodgson Burnett wrote the classic book of childhood, "The Secret Garden," unleashing into the world of literature one of the most remarkable characters ever, Mary Lennox. Mary is a plain-looking ten year old child who was raised in India. She was all but completely ignored by her self-absorbed parents and put under the care of ayahs, who indulged her in order to keep her from bothering her parents. She had no friends or playmates of her age, so she never experienced the give and take of interacting with other children. Thus, she grew to the age of ten generally helpless, unable to care for herself, demanding, and lacking in basic social skills. Contrary to some critical opinions, Mary isn't so much nasty-bratty as haughty-arrogant. But she had a seemingly insatiable thirst for learning, and the capacity and wisdom to read and understand the ways of her world. And she had a driving will to achieve her goals. She also was able to recognize and appreciate offers of friendship and love from whatever source. (SPOILERS)Considering the depth and power given her character by author Burnett in the first half of the story of "The Secret Garden," it's ironic that with the introduction of Colin Craven, her cousin, Mary seems to be elbowed out of the way in favor of a bigger emphasis on Colin's story line. Indeed, in the original story and most of its movie incarnations, she isn't even given the privilege of sharing in the dramatic ending where Colin and his estranged father are at last united. It's especially ironic in light of the fact that it was through Mary's efforts that the garden and its magic were resurrected, Colin grew strong, and the reconciliation of Colin and his father was enabled. "The Secret Garden" is not Mary's story; however, it's the story Mary made possible. (SPOILER)Director Agnieszka Holland, a devoted admirer of the original novel, understood Mary's importance, and brought the story around in a full circle to end in the scene where Lord Craven, Colin's father, gives Mary her deserved recognition. "You brought us back to life, Mary," he tells her. So this movie starts with an arrogant child throwing her name at you, not caring whether you like her or not, and it ends with a messiah who "learned how to cry."

The whole cast was great, especially the children Heydon Prowse (Colin) and Andrew Knott (Dickon) and especially, especially Kate Maberly who played Mary with such power and depth. Also, recognition should go to Maggie Smith as the intimidating Mrs. Medlock, John Lynch as Colin's somber bereft father Lord Craven, and to Laura Crossley for her heart-warming portrayal of the bright, sensitive, humble Martha.


OK, I love the film! Kate Maberly is such a wonderful young actress and I would like to see more of her! When I saw the movie for the first time I was 14 and I was really astonished how she could make me identify with Mary Lennox, a 10-year-old girl from the beginning at the century, in a story line no one would give a damn about in our days. It has been an experience of its own since. Now I'm 18 and probably more cynical, so it has lost some of its magic to me, but I still like to try to get enchanted and I would urge everyone to ... well ... open his mind. It's a children's movie alright, but more important it is just perfectly done!

Mrs. Medlock, Mary Lennox's adversary, if you want so, is played by the excellent Maggie Smith. She rules the castle of Mary's tragic uncle, where she has to live. As if the castle weren't already a very eerie and uncomfortable place (you feel it), under her orders it becomes some kind of nuthouse as she's jerking around everybody - giving the movie very funny and very weird moments. It's unfair how she treats Mary and just plain crazy what she does to Colin, Mary's cousin. But she's not really evil, not a villainess, but she'll show us that she has a heart. I appreciate this attitude very much: how people are never really evil, only a bit sickened.

All characters and actors are really fine, but I want to lose a few more words about Mary Lennox. It's an extremely well-written character for a child and this allows Kate Maberly to carry the movie, make us want to accompany her. Originally, she actually is *egotistic*, but maybe only thus she can find her way and make things right. You'll find her cheeky, you'll like her and you'll understand her.

There is much more to say about the picturesque garden, music, friendships, attitudes and so forth... I'll leave it with my above feelings and thoughts. (If you know the movie, you'd find that I'm ignoring pretty much)

Because I'm *cynical*, it doesn't make the 10: so 9 out of 10, then!


I love this movie & often wish that my family could live where they did.I first found out about it when I was little from my mother- it's a good mother/daughter movie.I don't own it yet but will very soon so my daughter can watch it.I hope that she loves it just like I did (still do) The are some sad parts in the movie where it shows how Collins mother died & the garden was never open again.It took a little girl with a kind heart to win over her uncle-in-law in order for him to let her have the key.To me this movie says that anything is possible with love & care & that children are brilliant,not only do they learn from us but we can learn from them as well.I think that the parents that are too busy & have way too many things going on in their daily schedule need to take time out to watch this movie & do something with their children.There is a plot of land next to us here where we live that I want to make a garden out of & I want my kids to help with it (: thanks mom & to all mothers everywhere (patting myself on the back- I'm a mom too (:


This exquisitely made film is a Victorian genre painting come to life.Mary Lennox is Thomas Cooper Gotch's "The child enthroned".The late 19th century middle and upper classes were obsessed by the idea of children and childhood,a preoccupation encouraged by the high infant/mother mortality rate due to paucity of medical knowledge and the lack of what today would be considered even the most basic hygienic practices. Despite the Industrial Revolution and the consequent leaps and bounds of technological progress childbirth and womens' health was very much a side issue in a patriarchal society.Colin's father has no interest in his son's upbringing despite - or,arguably,because of the fact that his wife,whom he clearly loved had died giving birth to the boy.He is an intelligent man and knows that such an attitude is not reasonable,but it is the status quo for a man of his position .That he loves and understands children is made clear by his attitude towards Mary and his defence of her against Mrs Medlock,but his gender and his own upbringing are not easy forces for him to overcome. And Mary is not an immediately attractive child.Orphaned by an earthquake in India,she is sent to England,where she has never been,to live with her uncle,bereaved husband of her dead mother's late sister. So spoilt and mollycoddled that she is unable even to dress herself,she soon comes into conflict with her cousin's governess/nurse/minder Mrs Medlock,and her cousin himself,an apparently sickly boy,bedridden,self-pitying and petulant.How she changes the lives of the boy,her uncle and Mrs Medlock is told in "The Secret Garden". It is a film made with loving care and attention.Every set-up is beautifully composed,perfectly colour-balanced and lit . The shot where Mary looks longingly out of the window is stolen from Sophie Anderson's "No Walk Today" and that is not meant as a criticism. The secret garden itself could have been painted by Helen Allingham. The long lingering close-ups of Mary's face,her eyes and hair superbly lit,recollect the almost mythologising aspect of Victorian child portraiture.Perhaps it takes a European director to reveal the potential for real beauty in the long hallways,sweeping staircases and secret passages in an English manor house.British filmmakers are often too concerned with post-colonial guilt and wracked with naive ideas of class conflict to give a balanced picture of life in Victorian England. The fact that Dickon is very much a village boy and several social strata below Mary and Colin is never referred to in the film. Instead he is depicted as a child of nature,almost a gypsy,born to country ways and in almost Buddhist-like commune with wild animals. The last scene,a tremendous long shot where he rides off over the moors on his white horse has a fine mythic echo to it. It would take a colder heart than mine to turn aside from the redemption through innocence proposition that is at the centre of "The Secret Garden"


My mother used to talk this movie up, all the time. At the time I couldn't have bothered. Childish nonsense, I thought. I wasn't into family films at all. And for the most part, I am still not. It was after my mother died recently, I saw it on HBO. I decided to watch. I was pleasantly surprised. The film is wonderful. It kindles that bit of our inner child that we all possess.

The film is charming and, really does well at telling a family story of tragedy and loss. With the hope of spring and, thing's that grow.

There's a scene where Mary is dreaming where she is a young toddler and is crying for her mother. I was deeply moved.

I now understand why my mother loved this film so much.


this film was one of my favourite childhood films and i loved it. it is really touching about the storyline, how she finds the garden and creates into the lovely garden it used to be. i would recommend this film to the girls aged around 4&10 even though i may be a little bit old for this film i still feel the same way i did for this film when i was younger. i was only 4 when film came out but i can remember watching this film over and over again and i would never be sick of watching it. i love this film to bits and i hope i always will.i hope that other people have enjoyed the secret garden as much as i have. words cannot described the way i feel about this film though.


When I first saw this movie, I was deeply touched. Its an awesome movie that everyone of all ages should see. I could watch it over and over again and never get tired of seeing it. I like the music that was composed in this movie. The girl who played Mary Lennox is an extremely good actress. Its a movie that will make you laugh and cry and touch your heart at the same time. I really love this movie and the book as well. Both are very breathtaking. Its definitely a must-see kind of movie. Whoever hasn't seen this movie should definitely see it its worth it!! From the beginning to the end there was never a dull moment of this movie.


It's the only word i can use to describe this movie. Although I have seen this movie hundreds of times, I can not get past Andrew Knott's performance. I must admit being young the first time i saw the movie i had a huge crush on Dicken! I was just WAITING for him and mary to fall in love! I am always disappointed at the end! Anyways, I just think that Andrew Knott's performance was outstanding, he did a great job in Black Beauty as well and I am surprised that he has not been extremely successful. I have it a 10!


The director was genius! I loved the music and the actors were so great! Kate Maberly really did a great job, as did Maggie Smith and Laura Crossly! I also noticed how Mary's dresses changed along with how she progressed with her attitude. They got brighter and prettier, than just "Black, Black or Black". I also really LOVED the music, Zbignew Preisner's music fit the movie SO well, and I LOVED IT!!! The movie had some scary parts in it, too! Like when she went at night to find Colin, the music and the camera-work and that scary blanket with the ugly boy on it covering Colin's room gave it an eerie kind of vibe. I love this movie!!!


WOW! First time I saw this movie in 1993 I was in Kindergarten. I remember the day my mom bought the movie for me when it came out on VHS and I just couldn't stop watching it! Still to this day I still can't stop watching it! The Secret Garden is the most beautiful movie ever made-in every aspect. It's one of "me and my mommy's favorite movies"!. This movie is so great, it even has it's own copy-cat movie(*Cough* LITTLE PRINCESS *cough!*...don't get me wrong, I do like the movie though).

This movie has the best 3 child actors I have EVER seen! I'm surprised they haven't become mega-movie actors by now; but atleast they do have one amazing movie that they can add to their resume`!

I would give you a summary, but I'd ruin the whole story!! If you want me to, drop me an e-mail asking about The Secret Garden and I'll ruin it for you. Believe me, you'll wanna plan your own Garden.

Since alot of people are adding it, I'll add mine as well... Favorite Part: When Mary, Collin and Dickon are in the garden together and Collin learns how to walk for the first time. Also when Collin comes face to face with his father for the first time!!

This movie shouldn't stay a Secret! I give it a 10 out of 10


I gave this movie an excellent rating because of the story line, the excellent adaptation from the book to the movie, and a truly exceptional cast. Even the incidental music was excellent. I've never heard of the composer but he truly embraced and enhanced the overall mood of the movie. The other thing that impressed me was how there was such careful attention to make sure that it remained true to the period, since this was set in England at the turn of the 20th century. Kate Maberly and Maggie Smith gave absolutely outstanding performances, they truly embodied their roles and it showed. It is a real shame that Kate has decided not to pursue acting as an adult because if she was this good in this movie as an 11 year old she would be a phenomenal adult actress. This movie is high on my list of one of the best ever made.


I watched this film in Poland, the fatherland of Agnieszka Holland, after being attacked and robbed in a dark alley earlier that holiday-trip. I had to watch it with one eye closed because of broken glasses, but this wonderful fairytale deeply moved me, brought many tears to my eyes nd transcended me in a happy world where everything is fine. At once I knew this was going to be forever the most memorable visit to the cinema. The story will be well-known.The end is fairly incredible, but that's what fairytales are usually like.What made this film so great was the wonderful music by Polish composer Zbigniew Preisner.Listen to the music alone and you'll know why this movie moves you.It's available on CD, like a lot of other filmmusic of this composer too ("Trois couleurs","Dekalog" and "At play in the fields of the Lord" to mention some).


When writing or directing a children's film, far too often

people find it necessary to dumb down work in order to cater to

a young audience. Fortunately this is not the case with The

Secret Garden, a film in which the story it presents is well

crafted and intelligent, and appealing to both young and old

audiences. In many ways the production could have gone

dreadfully wrong. One can see where in the hands of a less

talented writer or director the story could have become

melodramatic, overly sentimental, or comical, yet The Secret

Garden is a beautifully executed picture that rings true as a

result of its naturalistic storytelling. Much of this is due to

the credit of its fine cast. Frequently, child actors are

employed to act "cute" onscreen, but there is not a young actor

in this movie who does not give a performance of great depth. In

fact, it can easily be argued that each one of these children

exhibit greater skill than many adults currently working in the

realm of cinema. But what is at the heart of The Secret Garden

is a beautiful lyrical story about love, childhood, growth, and

healing. There are moments in the film that are so genuinely

touching the viewer's heart almost stops. Such is the case of

the scene in which the bedridden Collin is escorted outside of

his house and his eyes open to see spread before him his

mother's beautiful garden. No line of dialogue is necessary, for

the happiness and peace that appears on Collin's face speak

volumes in regard to his character. The film's ending emotion is so rich and moving that it is

impossible for the filmgoer to sit untouched. This story is an

absolute delight, and should be a must for


I couldn't stop. At first I thought I was only going to view the first 10 minutes then hit the bed, but I simply couldn't stop. The screenplay is so perfectly done that there is actually not a boring moment, not at all. And those excellent children and the surprisingly adorable Martha! I've always loved the original book and the Broadway musical of Secret Garden and now I love this enchanting film even more! The seventy minutes went without feeling any of them, I even forgot to check on my sleeping baby as I usually would! The beauty of it is breathtaking, the plot and pace is gripping and the whole film is quite beyond expectation! It's better than the other film 'The Little Princess' as The Secret Garden seems to suit grown ups better! I'd very much love to see a musical film made out of it someday!


The Secret Garden is easily one of the best films I have ever had the pleasure of watching. I loved it as a child and still find it absolutely amazing now. It has a wonderful cast. The young people in it are fantastic, performing better than I would ever have expected from people their age. The adults are also fantastic - especially Maggie Smith, she never disappoints me, and I think this is one of her best performances yet. The entire setting of the film is reflects the wonder and magic that have made the book by Frances Hodgson Burnett a classic. The images of the garden itself are absolutely stunning, it is almost worth watching the film just to see the beautiful landscape and architecture which is featured in it. If you want to escape the real world for a few hours I would definitely suggest this film. I just can not believe it wasn't the massive hit that it most definitely deserved to be!


When I saw the film in 1993, I was like, "Wow! What a wonderful film!" The film itself is somewhat boring at spots, but all in all the films eliminates that through a good story and good acting.

Kate Maberly who starred as, "Mary" in the film is absolutely magnificent. I am wondering why I don't see her in many other films. Maggie Smith who was also in the film, of course brings a dramatic performance. I wasn't expecting anything less from her.

I really enjoyed the film and everyone should at least see it once.

I don't know how they did it, but the film has alot of drama, however, it doesn't get too mushy. Not at all!

Get something to eat, and sit back and enjoy this cinematic masterpiece.


Arty but stilted adaptation of Frances Burnett's 1911 novel about a young orphaned girl who comes to stay with her chilly relatives, eventually taking over their rotting garden and transforming it into a sanctuary. Famous story previously filmed in 1949 with Margaret O'Brien in the lead; here, young Kate Maberly isn't so much miscast as she is misplaced; inappropriately dropped into the tale, she's a too-modern tyke representing neither time nor place, and her youthful exuberance is rather exasperating. The handsome, careful art direction and design have led some to call the picture a breakthrough in live-action family films, but the pacing is too leaden and the narrative isn't rich enough for most adults. *1/2 from ****


This version of Frances Hodgson Burnett's The Secret Garden takes the novel and eliminates all but the most crucial elements to make sure the story makes sense, but there is so much left out from the book that it takes away a lot of the magic. Rather than have the garden act as a magical entity in itself, it is more of an escape from the creepy dreariness of Misselthwaite Manor, a gigantic monstrosity of a mansion that does justice to the enormity of the one portrayed in the novel but is such a brooding and unpleasant place that the escape of it overshadows the magical curiosity that should be entailed by the garden. The film creates a great sense of atmosphere, with the long hallways and the tremendously and unnecessarily elaborate living quarters that Mary is placed in, and we see some wonderful things as Mary sneaks around to explore the mansion, although she really only goes into one room and then her explorations are over.

Kate Maberly delivers a wonderful performance as Mary Lennox, the spoiled little girl who is sent to live with her uncle, the reclusive Lord Craven, when her parents die of cholera in India, an event which never seems to affect her since her parents were always too busy for her anyway. Mary doesn't seem to care too much where she is being moved to beyond the fact that it is such an inconvenience for her, and she soon has to face the fact that she is no longer going to be waited on hand and foot like she was by her Ayah in India.

Heydon Prowse also gives a great performance as Colin Craven, the young boy who is so extraordinarily spoiled that he has become literally incapable of caring for himself or even standing up. The young actors in this film are much more impressive than young actors often are (this is the kind of actor that is most likely to be forgiven for a bad performance because they're so darn cute), each portraying wonderfully the characters as they are presented in the novel. Andrew Knott as Dickon is the other major example, perfectly portraying the magical young boy who has a way with animals.

The thing that makes the movie not compare to the novel is that there are some important things from the book that are left out of this film version, some of which I can understand being done for time purposes but there are some things that just should have been put in, in one way or another. There is nothing, for example, about the exercises that Colin indirectly learns from Bob Haworth in order to strengthen his legs, there's nothing about Colin's plans to become a scientist and an explorer and a lecturer (this kid wanted to be Indiana Jones and they didn't even mention it in the movie!), we see nothing of Colin's extravagant plans for how he should present his newfound health and strength to his father, there's very little said about the Magic that all three of them have found in the garden, and even Dickon's entire family (which is enormous in size as well as significance to the story) is left out entirely.

These are just a few of the things that I noticed to be missing, and I'm sure the list goes on. The story itself is also hugely simplified, but if you take into consideration a film adaptation of something like Frankenstein, you can see that this could have been a lot worse. The 1933 film version of Mary Shelley's 1818 novel covered maybe 3-5% of the novel, which completely changed the meaning of the story and transformed Frankenstein's monster (Frankenstein is, of course, not the monster, but you already know that because you've read the book, right?) from an enormously intelligent creature who only wants to fit in to the world that he has been placed in and into a hulking, thoughtless beast. In this case, this version of The Secret Garden could have been a lot worse, but on the other hand, it could also have been a lot better, hence my conflict.

For the most part, the story is here, which is a good thing. We know that the garden once belonged to and was loved by Lord Craven's wife, and we know that she died giving birth to Colin which is why Lord Craven locked up the garden forever and can scarcely stand even to look at his crippled son, who he fears will turn out to be a hunchback like himself (although neither of them look like hunchbacks at any time during the film). We briefly see Mary's life in India and we see a heavily diluted version of the part where she realizes what has happened to her parents, and then she is moved to Misselthwaite.

The movie diverts from the book almost immediately, but mostly when Mary goes to Misselthwaite Manor. She is urged to go outside and explore by the endlessly patient Martha, and almost immediately runs into the secret garden. The grounds are bitterly cold and it's almost uncomfortable watching this portion of the film, which reminds me of other uncomfortable but wonderful films like Buffalo '66 and Affliction, but this is the sort of thing that replaces the real magic in the book. Rather than find the garden as a truly magical place, it is an escape from the dreariness of the rest of Misselthwaite. The robin is an important part of the story and it is found in the movie, but thankfully it is not presented quite as much as in the book. This is one of the only things that is fortunately subdued a little bit, since in the book the robin goes through a mating period and there is actually one chapter late in the novel where the robin and his mate have a conversation about Dickon and his strange friends, whom they're not too sure about.

There are certainly some things from the novel that are left out of the movie with good reason, such as this scene where the narrative goes into the thoughts of the robins, which can only be disorienting and awkward unless it was done much earlier in the novel (and even then it would not have fit too well with the rest of the story). The ham-handed delivery of the moral at the beginning of Chapter 17 is also left out with good reason, but then there are little things changed as well, such as the simplification of the plot which takes away from the magic of the story as a whole, and even smaller things, like the fact that the command that Mary teaches Colin to tell her servants that he is done with them is changed from `You have my permission to go,' in the novel, to `I have spoken, all depart,' in the book.

Did you ever see Sphere? That bad science fiction movie from 1998 that was based on the Michael Crichton novel? They did something similar in that movie, changing some of the names of the characters for no apparent reason. I can never understand why they would do things like that when making books into movies. On the one hand, I can understand that there are some books that could be made a lot better with a little tweaking here and there, but The Secret Garden is a classic novel that, with a few tweaks here and there, is most likely to be changed into a movie that could have been a lot better with a few small changes. Or, as it were, without a few small changes. This movie is sure to entertain and delight its target audience, but it should not be taken in place of the novel, which is hugely superior.

I have spoken. All depart.


The Secret Garden is a classic with all ages. This version is best of all. Actors and scenery captures the story for us, of a little boy, motherless because of an accident and the garden that claimed her life. The boys father keeps the garden hidden from all. Over grown like that of in 'sleeping beauty' no one even knows it is there, till the boy's cousin comes to visit a little girl, who breathes life back into the home, the family and this poor crippled boy. Family entertainment to a "T". Might need one hankie, for it can be very heart rending at times. Great film to have in your movie library.


"The Secret Garden" is one of those rare films that forces you to see Life's inherent beauty. It is a gothic tale which miraculously transforms itself into a pastoral idyll. For once, we enjoy the intoxicating experience of seeing unhappy people find love and bliss, instead of watching happy people meet their disillusionment. What's more, the principal characters are children, who, in an odd twist, are able to mature only because they've found the bliss of being young. Like Mike Newell's "Enchanted April," "The Secret Garden" celebrates the curing effects of the natural world and the possibility of human beings rediscovering (or discovering) their sense of contentment. It dares us to consider that our existence has a magical component that we cannot articulate. The film's lavish photography and beautiful landscaping serve to underscore these themes, as does the soulful celtic soundtrack. It is simply impossible to watch these children and not be moved to thankfulness for own humanity, however flawed it may be.


Some people complained the makers changed the message of the book. They didn't, or I don't think so anyway. If that was the case, that was the only thing they changed. The script is focused and the direction masterful. The book in my opinion is one of the most enchanting children's books ever written. The film is equally enchanting, and the director manages to spoof a spirited performance from the lovely Kate Maberly. Haydn Prowse was great as Colin, and John Lynch is suitably melancholy as the uncle. Stealing the show, however, was Maggie Smith as Mrs Medlock, the truly beastly housekeeper. The film itself looks beautiful thanks to the stunning cinematography, and I loved the Gothic darkness tone retained from the book. Another mention is the haunting and poignant music score, that makes me cry. What does work best of all is its simplicity though. I thoroughly recommend this and Little Princess, 10/10 Bethany Cox


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.


8 times and counting. That's how many times I've read the book. The episodic structure of the novel is such that it's easy to dip in and out of, even if you're reading other things. You can quite easily spend an hour or a day with Henry and Claire whenever you wish.

When I found out that they were making a movie of the book, my initial reaction was how? There's far too much to cram into a two hour movie. Surely they'd be better making a mini- series?

The fact is, that they leave a lot of things out of the movie. Characters who you'd assume would be quite important are given very little screen time, or excised completely. Also, the ending of the novel isn't used, only the spirit of the ending. The book's ending was filmed, however, so maybe it'll turn up as a DVD extra for all the purists out there.

You know what though? The movie is great. It's perfectly cast, and instead of concentrating on every minute detail that made the book a joy to read, it concentrates solely on the boy- meets-girl-out-of-time concept, and plays out a love story over an evening-sized slice of time.

Lots of people have complained that their favourite part from the book isn't in it (Rachel's disastrous first date with another man and Henry's revenge for it, The Gomez situation, Ingrid, Christmas at Meadowlark etc) but really, there is enough in this movie to sustain it and to give any newcomers to the story a decent enough reason to run off and read the book to fill in the blanks. Those people especially are in for a treat, as while the movie does have it's moments of high drama, there is a noticeable lack of darkness, which the book has in spades. Also kudos must go to Bruce Joel Rubin for the writing of a brand new scene featuring a time travelling Henry and his mother on a subway train, which slotted in perfectly to the TTW world.

Rachel McAdams makes a stunning Claire, her scenes revolving around the pregnancy issues they have are completely believable and heartfelt. Early reports suggested Eric Bana wasn't up to snuff in his performance of Henry. I can only assume those reviewers had been watching a very rough cut, as I thought he was fantastic. Special mention also to Arliss Howard as Henry's dad, and Stephen Tobolowsky as Kendrick, who both go to demonstrate how scenes can be stolen with very limited screen time.

For everyone who's going in expecting the book, lower your expectations. It isn't the book. What it is, is a condensed version of the main love story from the book, played out perfectly with respect for the text. I enjoyed the movie immensely, and am looking forward to seeing it again. If I want the book, I'll read the book. My imagination is perfectly capable of providing me with the visuals I need. However, from now on, if I want to spend the evening with the DeTambles and let someone else do the work, I'll be watching the movie.


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!


The most depressing thing about the time traveller's wife is how it breaks your heart within the first five minutes. The story shows the distance between two people due to a lack of time. As time is one of the most precious things in life, Henry's condition creates a big strain on his relationship with Clare.

In a way, the problems between Clare and Henry could be compared to that of a real couple. A husband leaves the house for days on end and turns up again from nowhere, creating an emotional strain between him and his wife which only leads to sadness. Henry's condition makes him look like a selfish person, even though he has no control over the circumstances. This massive problem in their relationship just highlights how much they really love each other.

The story is complicated but somehow still easy to follow. Even though the film is thoroughly enjoyable, the constant skips back and forth through time are rather mind-boggling. The complex ideas of time travel are interesting and well entwined into the love story.

Because time travel is an old concept, the story provides new ideas as to how someone could skip backwards of forwards in time. The idea that Henry always arrives in the past or future nude is a clever and original concept. This idea actually makes a lot of sense because his condition is part of an odd bodily function and his clothes would not be affected by the travel.

Eric Bana shows his ability to keep the story emotionally tense throughout. Rachel McAdams also shines but not as brightly as she has in previous roles. Some of the other cast members fail to convince or show much emotional depth, mainly the younger actors and actresses. However, child actors tend not to have as much ability at such a young age.

The sentimentality and picturesque cinematography makes every second thoroughly enjoyable. The story is well put together and does not become unnecessarily difficult to follow. The mixture of all these elements makes The Time Traveller's Wife a delightful and touching love story.


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.


On a cold winter's night Clare (Rachel McAdams) confesses to her husband Henry (Eric Bana), "I wouldn't change a second of our life together." McAdams and Bana are both beautiful and amazing in Director Robert Schwentke's "The Time Traveler's Wife" based on the bestselling novel by Audrey Niffenegger. "The Time Traveler's Wife" adapted by screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin is a bitter sweet and strange love story. It is not perfect; although, it ends perfectly. There is a timeless and yearning quality that engages in "The Time Traveler's Wife". However, Schwentke and Rubin might have leveraged sharper emotional arcs at particular narrative points. During the course of their lives, Clare and Henry experience tragedy and joy. In spite of this, Rachel McAdams is stunning. I am in love with her. Bana is powerful and moving.

In a heartbreaking scene Clare (McAdams) tells Henry (Bana), "Do you think I wanted this life?" Time Traveler Henry indiscriminately vanishes to different places in time and space. Interesting to that end, this seems to follow "The Terminator" rule: Henry can only travel through time naked. Also interesting to note that Bana as Henry is a muscular 6'3", which makes finding clothes that fit wherever he arrives difficult. I digress. The point is McAdams captures both Clare's humanity and angst. She embodies an authenticity in Clare. Eric Bana displays a strength and gentleness. His Henry travels to the future and meets his lovely 10 year old daughter Alba (amazing Hailey McCann). He gazes upon Alba with such love when she says, "I love you Daddy!" Underlying it all, "The Time Traveler's Wife" is about legacy and everlasting love. So regardless of some clumsy repetitive narrative loops and circular logic, McAdams and Bana make you care about their love story.

We first see 6 year old Henry (good Alex Ferris) singing with his mom Annette (beautiful and strong Michelle Nolden) in a car. Tragedy befalls, and Henry's Time Traveler abilities are revealedalso by the grown up Henry (Bana). But for Henry this seems more curse than gift. Then one day Clare sees Henry in a Chicago library, and says, "It's you!" Apparently, older Henry has been visiting Clare since she was 6 years old. She says that he seems to keep visiting the same places. Henry replies, "Yeah. It's like gravity." Clare has been in love with Henry her entire life.

It turns out that Henry has a genetic defect that is the cause of his time travel. To that end he seeks out, and finally convinces the bewildered Dr. Kendrick (solid Stephen Tobolowsky) of his plight. But what does this foreshadow about Clare and Henry having a family and their life together? Director Schwentke sort of telegraphs the painful narrative twist. Then he recovers and resolves perfectly and eloquently as Henry regrets, "I can't stay" Ultimately, "The Time Traveler's Wife" is about lifeits joy, fragility, and mortality. Things just happen, not necessarily for a reason. And if you take a chance and find the love of your life, then it is life worth having lived. I loved "The Time Traveler's Life".


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.


The Time Traveler's Wife (PG-13, 1:46)  SF, 2nd string, original, OSIT romantics

This is the movie that Benjamin Button aspired to be. It's the tale of an unusual man, a man who does not experience time the way everybody else does, and of the woman who loves him anyway. Unlike Button, their sheer humanity and love of life make us actually care. Clearly SF, The Time Traveler's Wife has none of the superficiality of character all too common to the genre; indeed, it's as sincere and genuine a love story as you'll ever find in the movies.

The "time traveler" is not the unnamed Edwardian Era protagonist of H. G. Wells's The Time Machine. In fact, this one has a name  Henry DeTamble  and he lives in some vaguely contemporary time period. As the movie opens, we seem him at age 6, happily singing "Jingle Bells" while riding in a car driven by his mother thru a driving rainstorm. Their car gets clipped, Henry gets banged up a bit, and the shock triggers his 1st time jump. Mere seconds later, he returns to the side of the road and watches horrified as his mother, frantically twisting around to search the back seat for her suddenly missing son, fails to see the big truck bearing down on her. And moments after that, his future self (Eric Bana) arrives to assure him that things will get better.

It is left to the viewer to imagine how Henry must have felt about his own role in his mother's death. We learn that he doesn't have much control over when he will dematerialize, except that it often seems to be triggered by stress or excitement, so we can imagine the effect this would have on his love life. And he's sometimes gone for weeks at a time with no believable excuse, so this gives us a clue about his job security.

Thus it's no surprise that he's a bit of a mess when, working his Chicago job as a research librarian, he's approached by Clare Abshire, a woman he's never seen before, who professes that she's been in love with him for decades  and that it's been mutual. How messed up is he? Well, he's standing there with Rachel McAdams  OMG! Rachel McAdams!!  aiming that beautiful smile and those big eyes right at him, and he's trying to find excuses to back away. Fortunately for him and the story, she manages to overcome his hesitation.

We learn a very few things about time traveling. Henry can travel to times outside of his own lifetime, but most often he shows up at times and places that occur on his own personal lifeline thru the 4-dimensional space-time monobloc. It's only his body that makes the trip, which means that usually his 1st task on arrival is finding clothes. There's apparently a genetic (not mechanical or quantum) basis for his ability (or affliction), and this leads him to seek aid from Dr. David Kendrick. In a moment reminiscent of transparent aluminum, Henry informs Dr. Kendrick that future scientists will know him as the inventor of the phrase "chrono displacement"; the few other paradoxes are equally subtle.

But the movie isn't so much about time travel as it is about Henry and Clare's profound and enduring love for each other under trying circumstances. Not since Christopher Reeve pined away forlornly for Jane Seymour in Somewhere in Time (1980, haunting theme by John Barry) has this theme been done so well in SF.

Henry, Clare, and their star-crossed relationship take up most of the screen time. But, like a diamond set off by smaller jewels, McAdams and Bana are surrounded by exquisite little gems from the supporting performers, notably Brooklynn Proulx as young Clare and the McCann sisters, Hailey and Tatum, as their dotter Alba at ages 10 and 5.

No film is perfect, and this one isn't either, but I have to single out one niggling detail that kept distracting me thruout this movie and most other ones that Eric Bana has appeared in. It's this: Somebody should introduce the guy to either a razor or the concept of a beard. I don't care how devoted Rachel McAdams is to you, if you look like you're always coming off a perpetual hangover, it's gonna wear off.


Based on the trailers, I was dreading seeing this film, as it looked like a shallow dull romantic movie with a "clever" twist in the form of the time traveller. However, I was very pleased to find, within ten minutes of the film starting, that it was clear that I was wrong; it was a very complex movie, looking at various problems/blessings that the main character's condition meant. The first part of the film obviously introduced the titular character, his condition, and the love interest. This was done very cleverly, as she had known him for many years, but it was the first time he had met her. This is because it was an older version of him that travelled back to her childhood and earlier years. This broken timeline continues throughout the whole film, meaning that it could have easily been an incoherent muddle, but the director has controlled things carefully; sometimes following the traveller's timeline, so everyone around him changes age suddenly; sometimes following everyone else's timeline, so the traveller appears to suddenly age/become younger. The plot was kept on a low level; no one has to save the world in this film; it's just about a couple trying to live a normal life given the bizarre condition the husband has. The time travelling is played to various effects throughout the story; there are a few scenes of comedy, some extremely touching emotional scenes, and some genuine shocks. good few plot twists come as a surprise, at times drastically changing the tone of the movie, but never coming across as contrived. While there is little to no action to keep you entertained, the characters are certainly interesting enough to keep you in this movie, with the entire cast playing their parts perfectly; most importantly, everyone acts realistically, no over-blown dramatic reactions. The people I saw this with have read the book, and some changed were made to the plot, but based on what I was told, the film's interpretation of the plot is far better; certain events omitted did not belong in the story in my opinion, and cutting them out made the lasting impression of the film far less depressing. 9/10.


The Time Traveler's Wife is a romantic drama directed by Robert Schwentke, adapted from Audrey Niffenegger's bestseller of the same name. Adapting a novel with complex elements and undertones to the silver screen is a daunting task and director Robert Schwentke struggled to compromise between satisfying readers of the novel and making the movie accessible to people unfamiliar with the book. Overall, the movie has some significant directing and screen writing flaws but does make for an unpretentious and above-average romantic tragedy thanks to its two compelling leads.

Sypnosis: The Time Traveler's Wife is the time-defying love story of Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana) and Clare Abshire (Rachel McAdams). Henry is a librarian afflicted with a genetic disease that causes him to travel through time more or less randomly. Henry's random and unpredictable escapades are often dangerous, terrifying and sometimes life-threatening ordeals because he ends up buck-naked and starving in unknown places and times. For those reasons, Henry keeps himself in top physical shape and taught "himself" all type of survival skills such as pick-pocketing, street fighting, or picking locks. After a random while, he always goes back to his "present" but is largely unable to affect his future. At age 28, he meets 20-yr old Clare Abshire. He doesn't know her but she has known him since she was 6 and has been waiting for him all her life and will do so the rest of her life...

The main weaknesses of the movie can be traced back to trying to fit the book into 107 minutes. Director Robert Schwentke and screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin appeared a bit over-matched and took the path of least resistance, oversimplifying the plot and characters. The book was a bit confusing at times because of its particular narrative structure and the movie inherits the same problem. Screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin made some compromises to keep the movie from becoming excessively long or inaccessible to its PG-13 audience. The main events and characters of the book were translated to the big screen although non-essential characters such as Kimi or Ingrid were completely omitted and the ending was slightly altered (and I liked it). The supporting characters are a mere passing thoughts, the key relationship between Clare and Gomez is one-dimensional. Even the two main characters, Henry and Clare, are under-developed. Ideally, the direction of the movie should have been given to a director with better credentials, and the movie extended up to 140 minutes to develop the characters fully and take advantage of the terrific cast.

Despite those shortcomings, The Time Traveler's Wife is one of those movies you can't help but like. It is at heart a simple star-crossed love story with a refreshing sci-fi twist that touches on universal themes such as fate/free will, true love, and loss. A story that focused on the depth of the characters' love, not its showiness. Their will to move forward and enjoy every minute they have with each other before Henry's impending fate. This meant more close-up shots and a deeper and more realistic exploration of what it means to be Henry and Clare. The movie succeeds in moving the audience thanks in big part to moving performances from the two leads, who surrendered themselves fully to the premise of the novel.

The Time Traveler's Wife features the graceful Rachel McAdams as the title character. Most will have missed her terrific performance in the 2008 indie the Lucky Ones and this puts her back on the radar for mainstream audiences. Beside matching the description of Clare in the book, McAdams has an unusual ability to make her characters feel real against all odds. Overcoming an underwritten character, she carries the emotional weight of the movie and was luminous portraying Clare's spirit and unyielding love for Henry's despite being riddled with some terrible lines once again. Will someone give Rachel McAdams a meatier role for God's sake??? Eric Bana was a big surprise, exceeding my expectations and making for a very solid Henry. Although he does not fit the physical description of the book (Henry is more runner than football player) Bana's Henry was tormented, introverted, poignant, and more importantly, had considerable chemistry with his co-star. The only issue I had was that Henry was mostly a one-note character. The supporting cast was solid albeit given very little opportunity to be memorable. Gomez (Ron Livingstone) was a pivotal character in the book but merely a passing thought in the movie. Jane McLean as Charisse, Arliss Howard as Henry's father, Stephen Tobolowsky as Dr. Kendrick all did a fine job with the small parts they had.

The cinematography has a beautiful stark and cold quality to it which reinforce the tragic nature of the movie. The movie was beautifully shot by Florian Ballhaus and is the strongest attribute of the movie behind its leads. The crafty camera-work using motion and placement selection gave a particular tone to his scenes and Schwentke used that to his advantage in the film, giving the movie a light touch of fantasy. He created a nice immersing atmosphere that really highlighted Clare and Henry's impending fate. The CGI effects of Henry's time traveling are unspectacular but first rate while the overused musical score was melancholic, adding to the tragic tone of the movie.

Enjoy the Time Traveler's Wife for what it is: an endearing love story with an unusual sci-fi premise. It may not be exactly like the book, it may have been darker and heavier on the sci-fi, and it may have been so much more with better direction. Even so, the premise of the story, and the perfectly-cast leads make this movie well-worth the ride and will keep your imagination lingering long afterward.

B+: Boasting terrific performances and chemistry from Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana, the Time Traveler's Wife has some flaws but is a charming, endearing and bittersweet romantic drama nonetheless.

http://anomalousmaterial.blogspot.com/


"The Time Traveler's Wife" is a heart-warming love story, and will keep you entertained until the final credits appear. The performances are superb, the pacing is fantastic, and the emotional sensation you experience is easily worth the price of admission.

I recommend anyone looking for a unique love story to see this film. Paying homage to memorable classic such as; "Somewhere in Time" and "It's a Wonderful Life,"it will easily be something that should find a home in your living room shelves.

It emits a cinematic glow that hasn't been seen in years while cleverly conveying an educational message;

"Never let go of the one you love, and cherish him/her always."

Don't let this sparkling gem pass you by...


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.


In Chicago, the special collections librarian Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana) has a genetic anomaly that allows him to travel in time; however, he is not able to control the moment or the destiny of his voyages. When the stranger Clare Abshire (Rachel McAdams) meets him in the library, she invites him to have dinner with her in his favorite restaurant Beau Thai where she confesses that she has been in love with him since she was six years old. Henry leans that he had visited her many times in the real state of her parents and he falls in love with her. Sooner they get married, but the life of Clare becomes troubled with the successive unexpected travels of her beloved husband.

"The Time Traveler's Wife" is a delightful love story with an original romance of a time traveler that wins the heart of his wife when she was six years old and he was older. Therefore he does not know her in the present time. The chemistry between Eric Bana and Rachel McAdams is wonderful and makes their love absolutely believable. However, the girl Brooklynn Proulx steals the movie with a marvelous performance. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Te Amarei Para Sempre" ("I Will Love You Forever")


I really don't understand what's so good about this movie or the book. The guy travels through time. What for? why? Does it add anything to his character? Does he do anything special while traveling? He spoils the surprise of miracles in life to his wife and his daughter. He lives absolutely worthless life. I would understand if he was some sort of hero. He never works, never helps anyone, cheats in the lottery... And he dies as a jerk, by mistake. All his life is just a huge mistake.

I think an author endows a protagonist with some special abilities for a reason. There's no reason behind Henry's ability to travel through time. He could as well have an elephant ears and we'd have a story about Man with elephant ears' wife. Why not? Very bad movie


I'll admit that after reading some early remarks about Robert Schwentke's cinematic version I was very worried, in fact so much so that my expectations were somewhat low. This fact might have weighed on my ultimate decision concerning my enjoyment in seeing the DeTamble family's story on screen because I actually really bought in and was swept away for the journey. Yes, a lot, (and I do mean a lot), is omitted through the adaptation process of Oscar-winner Bruce Joel Rubin, but enough is kept to stay true to that romantic tone. Distilled down and perhaps dumbed-down, The Time Traveler's Wife may lose some of its geeky sci-fi flavor, but the heart and soul remains intact to be a solid date movie and entry to the romance drama genre.

I won't lie; I was disappointed overall. So much of the backstory and many reasons for what occurs to some characters have been tossed aside. But this is completely understandable as New Line needed to make a return on the investment and they couldn't risk losing their entire audience by scaring the girls with its science fiction devices or the boys for its romantic tendencies. Instead, they decided to market it as a love story to see with your significant other on a quiet evening out. On these terms, I really can't fault the job that has been done. I bought into it all right from the start as the filmmakers throw you into the action. Not only do we see young Henry's first travel through time, but we also witness the regular occasion of him meeting another version of himself at a different stage of life, as well as the incident that shapes his life foreverthe passing of his mother in front of his eyes. There is no opportunity to waver in the belief of this man moving through time, you see it straight away and then you continue on the journey to see what will occur as a result.

The novel itself used the brilliant device of being told through the eyes of our two leads, Henry and his soulmate Clare Abshire, as diary entries. Alternating one with the other, we experience what they do upon each meeting or journey, hearing their thoughts as they anticipate the next rendezvous, knowing how the one feels before seeing what the other felt at the exact same time. I believe this device could have been used effectively in film with voice-over narration, however, the screenwriter chose not to do so. Instead, the film is pretty much a linear telling of the life of Clare, probably the best entry point in being that the title does reference her; she is the one who must cope with this man that she cannot live without yet can also never truly have to herself. We end up going back in time to see her as a child, meeting a late-30s Henry, but only in flashbacks and memories from when the two 20-something versions of them meet. You see the bond forming and fate working its way in, setting a specific path as both tell each other future details they know because of the time traveling; he telling a young girl what is in store and she telling a young man the words his elder self passed on.

Are Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana ideal actors to portray these roles  I'm not so sure. They do, however, perform well and allow for some chemistry to give us cause to buy into the emotional turmoil they experience on a daily basis. Between the struggles to just see each other without Henry disappearing, to the pains of miscarriages and the possibility that they may never have children, to the knowledge of so much that will happen and trying to still believe they are making choices, the DeTambles are not your normal family by any means. What made the book so wonderful was the realism in the fictional heartaches and consequences of being with, or just plain knowing, someone with "chrono displacement syndrome". And I do believe our main characters carry that weight enough to draw a skeptic in. The other reason for Niffenegger's novel's genius is the large supporting cast, each with a history to themselves and a crucial part to play in the life of Henry and Clare. Unfortunately, in order to devote time to this tragic couple's progression in less than two hours, almost all the nuance is gone. What I wouldn't give for this to have been a miniseries or even a season of television so it could breath life into everyone.

You also never understand the sense of danger in what happens to Henry. Sure you see him pick some locks and get into fights, but what about the reason for why he ends up in a wheelchair? I know they have that one line about hypothermia and being stuck in the snow, but that story is so much bigger. By making it about Clare and how her life is affected, you only see Henry's condition as a nuisance rather than a life-threatening affliction that could tear them apart forever, (I liked the very intriguing Joy Division cover at the wedding, pertaining to this fact). As a result, the film's ending is similar to the book, but, in my opinion, not quite as memorable or important. Again, though, just because I know the novel is a masterpiece should not detract me from the film; it is its own entity. On the movie The Time Traveler's Wife's merits alone I am happy to say it is well worth the time. You still have to buy into the whole time travel thing, but rather than take the leap of faith scientifically with the printed version, you only need to want to see these two lovers grow old together. You pull for them to live happily ever after and frankly that is what a good romantic drama should do.


This film started off well but went absolutely no where! At times it threatened to get interesting by dropping hints of a twist in the plot but it lacked the guts to follow it through. The film was linear and predictable, at no point did I feel my emotions change. The plot had more loops in it than a sieve and made no effort to explain anything in depth. The acting was also poor, but given the quality of material there was to work with I doubt anyone could have made it better. Time travel is an amazing ability, you would have thought the writers would have been more creative about the possibilities it could afford a character.

Avoid this at all costs, there are better ways to spend 2 hours. If I could time travel I'd go back in time and make sure I'd never watched it!


When I read the summary on IMDb I was very curious, I thought it would be an interesting movie. In the beginning I thought all this 'short shots' were some kind of introduction of the movie, but the movie never started. It was like they wanted to tell so much in just one movie, that they didn't take the time to let the viewer get close to the characters. Not even one situation was filmed long enough to activate any emotional reaction from the viewer.

Maybe if you read the book, which I haven't, you already have compassion for them. But if you haven't read it, everything just goes way too fast for you to feel like you're 'in the movie'. Also I think it would have helped if they improved the clearness of the time-traveling aspect, so that you could spent the time you now use to understand the concept, on developing compassion for the family.

As you probably already noticed; I was very disappointed.


For those who haven't read the book (which is my case as well) you will find a very cute and sad movie, very much worth your time. It has excellent acting, a convincing plot and heart-breaking moments all over the place, and sometimes it even pulls a laugh right out of you.

Even though the young Henry doesn't really convince you that much, the scenes are so adorable that you overlook the petty details. The plot seems to have a few holes, but might be just details that were better explained in the book and the writers/editors/director decided to leave out of the film. This was still hardly ever a problem.

To sum up: a cute, sad and enjoyable film for those who like to be moved a bit. 8/10.


I thought this movie was incredible. It's not the book, but what movie is? I'm not actually married to a time traveler, I'm married to a soldier and this movie, Rachel McAdams feelings scream about every thought I've ever had. Even though it's in the book the quote "Long ago, men went to sea, and women waited for them, standing on the edge of the water, scanning the horizon for the tiny ship. Now I wait for Henry. He vanishes unwillingly, without warning. I wait for him. Each moment that I wait feels like a year, an eternity. Each moment is as slow and transparent as glass. Through each moment I can see infinite moments lined up, waiting. Why has he gone where I cannot follow?" Should have been in the movie cause it was so moving! I loved this movie entirely. My husband wasn't a huge fan. He felt there wasn't enough of a plot. But overall it's about being away from the one you love.


First, I was attracted by the trailer but I never thought it would be that good I just thought of normal time travel movie and it was a very pleasant surprise.

The story is complicated but somehow still easy to follow. Even though the film is thoroughly enjoyable, the constant skips back and forth through time are rather mind-boggling. The complex ideas of time travel are interesting and well entwined into the love story.

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.

Actually nothing to say would make you understand how great this movie is and you don't even need to read the reviews before you watch it, All you need to do right now is to watch it because seeing this movie is a MUST.


Having not read the book and hearing how great it is I was looking forward to seeing this one. The movie started off a little confusing and Eric Bana seemed a little stiff in the lead role and i was worried this movie was going to be a big disappointment. Gladly after about 15 minutes the movie settled into a very nice love story with a great time jumping twist and Eric Bana got better and better as the story went along.

Some people found the time travelling too unbelievable in that what would happen if he was driving or how come the police were never looking for him? etc etc. You could spend all day picking that apart but i found it easy to just overlook and enjoy his time jumping journey. Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana have good chemistry together and with the good script they were giving did a very nice job.

As far as time travelling love stories go this one was great and my gf and myself really enjoyed it and look forward to reading the book. If your looking for something sweet and different to rent I recommend this one :)


Romantic dramas tend to be very long and kinda dull. I came across the outlines, which was basically : "someone time travels unwillingly and the movie focuses on the effects it has one his daily life and relationship with his wife". This sounded so weird that I just had to see it.

The story is so heartfelt and touching with it's realism in the odd plot of Henry time traveling. The strong and sensitive Henry and his dreamy, artistic wife are both played perfectly.

What really took me away is that you don't really get to see much of Henry's time traveling. It's hardly even important where he goes, and I'm sure he most have experienced a bunch of stuff that would make for some action-packed breaks in the movie. But they're not included as they're not important to Henry's world and the core story: the relationship and Henry's family life. Time travel is such a huge plot to put in a movie, but they've managed to keep it as a mere side dish. Brilliant!

Watch this if you feel emotional and/or need to have a little cry.


Like many others here, I read the book a couple of years ago and I absolutely loved it. In fact, when I think about it, it's one of my all-time favorite books hands down.

But so very often, you read a really good book and when it is made into a movie, it never measures up to the book. The characters "look different" from what you had in your head, the story gets changed, and the general spirit goes missing.

Not in this case, I am happy to report! It was like seeing old friends again, even though I saw the movie for the fist time. Sure, due to run length-restrictions thinks got left out and were changed. But it still made a very good adaptation and a very, very good movie on it's own. I wasn't a big fan of Eric Bana when I first saw him in Hulk and even Munich. But I think, nobody could have played the role better than him. He just IS Henry DeTamble.

All in all, big thanks to everybody who was involved in the making. You did very good!


I saw this movie almost immediately after watching Veronika Decides to Die, another film just released based on a book (by Paolo Coelho). Marginally I liked time traveller wife more, but its marginal. I started to read the book a couple of years ago and couldn't finish it; going to revisit and try and finish it.

This is a nice 'time' love story and enjoy it for what it is. it has lots of twists and I have thought about the killing and the 'deer' business quite a bit. Yes a lot to pack into this movie but I cant really fault it, except I find characters such as the geneticist Hendrick suddenly introduced and we have to guess from that point.

Perhaps this is a hard film to establish continuity but overall they succeeded. Was the film really two hours? Didn't seem like it on DVD. Quite a few things I still have not grasped from the movie, hence the need to finish the book.

I never expect the two to be the same and never should they be.


A sci-fi time travelling story or a romantic drama played out across many time shifts? The film never makes up its mind. And, as a result, is a failure. Time travel bits are used as a convenience for a slightly different take on a romantic drama. Every time there is a bit which is awkward, yahoo a bit of explanation (slowing the film down) or just bus along and hope the audience will go for the goo (I couldn't get back for a fortnight, so I missed Xmas, or I'm travelling more because of the drugs I'm taking!). It may be a great novel - I haven't read it - but the film is contrived - why bother at all with the time travel nonsense when you want to make a four hankie woman's weepie?! Sorry, but Eric Bana does not cut the mustard as a romantic lead, but he does his naked David Banner bit; the supporting cast apparently are important, but are barely used; issues of loss, responsibility for that loss, responsibility for other's feelings are grazed over. And plot non-sequiturs are babbled about at high speed in case anyone really starts thinking about what's going on (the hypothermia leg incident!!What was that? I haven't read the novel!) Some nice touches here and there, even if Rachel McAdams appears to be reprising her role from 'The Notebook,' and the performance of the daughter is quite delightful - and, I might say, far more interesting than the grown ups! I should have cried more but frankly this film had nowhere really to go for most of its running length - it passed a rainy morning.


This film is so confused, contrived, messy and improbable, that there is no evidence of anyone's having thought their way through the contradictions that riddle any time-travel plot. Credibility having been abandoned,there is really nothing left to hold the viewer. It is not possible to believe that these characters believe any of this junk, and the viewer's mind simply wanders off. A mess. If one compares it with equally fantastic premises in films that actually work, the exercise is rewarding. I would suggest one from more than sixty years ago, entitle A Matter of Life and Death (also released as Stairway to Heaven) by The Archers, and starring David Niven and Kim Hunter: a great sense of play, and a careful adherence to the premises.


There are movies like "Deja Vu" and "Heaven Can Wait"...movies with out of this world understanding coupled with great love stories. "Time Traveler" is nothing but foolish, misguided, nonsensical crap. It simply doesn't work! No matter how hard you try to make it so. The time traveler can time travel with no rhyme or reason as to why. He just does. He says he can't take clothes with him and always ends up naked...somewhere, anywhere he just pops up. Yet...when the horse's arse gets shot by a hunter...he has no problem coming back to the 'present' with a bullet and wound in his side which, thankfully kills him and ends this dribble of a movie. The viewer can't possibly gain any appreciation for any of the characters or their circumstances. It's NOT a love story like the previously mentioned, great examples of this sorta-kinda movie. You don't care about these to. It's so stupid in its content and presentation, you really don't care if his young daughter would time travel smack dab into the middle of the Taliban! That's exactly how bad the connection is with these characters. There simply is no empathy for them. Period. Pitt bought the screen rights to this garbage while he was with Anniston. Pitt produces it. No wonder Anniston isn't in the credits. She knew better. She probably sold her portion to Pitt because she wanted nothing to do with him or it. Even Angelina stays well clear of this crap. Then there's two of him or two of the daughter who also has the 'gift'. My question is: Why weren't there 3 or 4 of them all at the same time to really make it ridiculous. I'm a sucker for a good love story and a well thought out 'what if' kinda story. This is so not neither! If Pitt wants to buy the rights to a good movie with a no kidding, monumentally interesting and original story that also includes an amazing love story: Purchase the rights to "Sariah's Secret!" Contact 'Ladymoon' for details. Brad, you are better than this. (You should've sold YOUR half to Anniston and cut your losses!) UPDATE: Only 4 out of 10 agree? Are you kidding me? You "6" actually liked this ridiculous, nonsense? What are you all? 13-years old? Because the only age group who could possibly 'relate'.


Ugh what to say... OK well I want to start by making some points I'm a romance guy. I like romantic movie always have, always will. From classics like Love Story, West Side Story, Romeo and Juliet, Ghost to the modern entries such as Titanic, Moulin Rouge, Walk to remember and even Twilight. I love sci/fi films from the awesomeness that is Serenity and Alien to turkey's like the astronauts wife and Invasion. And I like Dramas from Terms of Endearment to Steel Magnolias. I love Rachel Mcadams she is so likable and brought surprising depth to her roles in Family Stone, Red Eye and even Mean Girls. And I can think of hell of a lot of worse things than spending two hours naked with Eric Bana. So why didn't I love this movie. Well I guess because all in all it's kinda silly or at least its executed in a silly manner. The film is kind of a mess for its first half before finally finding somewhere to go. All of the turns are throughly predictable the chemistry between the leads is surprisingly generic and so are ther performances. I have no idea who anyone is in this movie and to tell you the truth after being dragged along for a while I didn't care. You see the movie never pulls you into its concept or its romance and there in lies the problem. They approach the subject matter from a seemingly realistic stand point but than falter in the execution that proceeds it. For instance why is so accepting of the fact that he time travels??? because they seem him disappear? I don't know about you but if I was a little girl or a grown man and some dissolved in front of me I'd be terrified. Anything that feels magical in the trailer feels forced and kinda creepy in the overall film. But yet I didn't hate it. Sure I spent a good hour hating the film but in its second half it pulls together for a bit before its overly anti climactic ending and there are some good moments. All in all it just all feels kinda silly and isn't very involving but like I said there are far worse things you could do besides spending two hours with a naked Eric Bana.