I came to this movie intentionally planning to try to view it as its own separate entity, even though I have read the book (and it was one of my favorites of the last year, by the way). I wanted to determine whether the movie was a good one on its own merit, because I knew it wouldn't measure up to the book but I thought it might be decent anyway.
I didn't like the movie's hint that Henry's time traveling was the cause of his mother's death. Unless I'm totally forgetting that part of the book (it has been six months since I read it), the accident wasn't Henry's fault. He did time-travel just at the point of impact, but his fading away did not distract his mother in her driving. And speaking of the fading away, I don't remember it being so gradual in the book. There were, of course, other differences between the book and the movie (some of which I actually liked. I'm glad Henry didn't lose his feet, and I didn't mind not seeing Henry's 15-year-old-self with himself doing whatever it was they did to each other in their bedroom), but I'm not going to bother listing every difference. I feel like the movie had all the most important points, anyway. It didn't really capture the essence of the book, and turned it into a sappy chick flick, but it was a pretty good sappy chick flick. Better than I expected, anyway!
Under New Management!
6 years ago
On the contrary, I believe the point was that Henry always felt he was meant to die in the accident with his mother. The only reason he survived was that he time traveled, which he did in times of stress. That, I felt was a very important piece of the story. It had a huge effect on his relationship with his father and also his own psyche for that matter.
ReplyDeleteI finally did watch this since it was on cable and I was curious. No, it did not come close to the book, but it was entertaining. Eric Bana didn't cut it for me as Henry, not only his looks but his acting seemed off. Rachel was better, but there just wasn't the intensity of their relationship as in the book.
ReplyDeleteYou're right--that intensity wasn't there.
ReplyDelete