User Reviews

I love horror movies. I like fun movies. But I am not really into romantic movies. Except this one.

I think it is well paced and has a lot of heart and warmth, and I swore profoundly when I read the reviews in the Danish media. As I see it, it is not just another "boy meets girl" love story. It is first and foremost a story about appreciating life - even the everyday routine. But also a film about the bond between a young man and his father.

Suffice it to say this: The plot is great and the story is well paced; The casting and acting is very good by all the main characters; Bill Nighy is really a joy to watch; The music/sound track is "spitzenklasse" throughout; I would not have to think twice if Rachel McAdams were to ask me to have a third child(sic!); The father/son farewell scene brought me the rare sensation of tears in my eyes (thank you for that)

ABOUT TIME is one half snappy romance and another half family drama which lures us into the tutelage of some very beneficial "Chicken Soup for the Soul" truisms like "value your life and live everyday fully", "notice the beauty in the small things around you" and "be brave to say goodbye to the beloved and move on", such and such. And under the sine qua non of a time-travel set-up.

At the age of 21, Tim (Gleeson in his breakthrough leading man offer), a clumsy young Brit learns from his father (Nighy) that all men in his family can travel in time (with certain limitation for sure). So with this windfall fate-altering gift, Tim starts to woo Mary, the girl of his dream, and eventually they get married and babies are coming on the way.

On the face value, the film is tremendously entertaining and heart-warming, Tim's naturalistic maladroitness proffers enough ballast for repeating his one-trick pony to finally win Mary over, along the way there are laughters galore; the family bond is also capaciously constructed between Tim and his father, and a detour to save his sister Kit Kat (Wilson) from wrong choices in her life.

The biggest revelation of the time-travel theory comes after Tim has fixed Kit Kat's past by going back to the time-line before the conception of Tim and Mary's first baby, when he jumps back, the process has altered the baby's gender. Then immediately after that scene Tim manages to miraculously change everything back to normal, so clearly this "no pre- baby travel" rule can be amended afterward. Which drastically conflicts with the eventual dilemma of choosing between going back to visit his deceased father and having a baby no. 3 after his dad's death, for the reason that he can reverse the repercussion of the butterfly effects whatsoever (as he did in the case of Kit Kat).

I'm not nitpicking (as I am more than happier to overlook the technicality of time-travel experience, take one example, how come Kit Kat gets a hunch that she is in love with Jay after they went back to the past and altered their fate, while Tim is oblivious of his newborn baby's gender until he sees him with his own eyes?), but the film is deeply flawed in a logic stand-point and this plot-hole is too glaring to overlook, which does hurt the movie's empathy in its final stage. Alas, the performances are generally favorable, Nighy surges into my Supporting Actor chart as a benevolent father figure, immensely understanding and reasonable, passes on his wisdom (which accumulated through ages) with coherent delivery, and as the sole theory elucidator, he is the one attracts the most amount of interest on screen (although he should have warned his son about the rule beforehand, which would save the film from its paradoxical miasma).

Gleeson and McAdams makes a fitting couple, although for the latter, it is her third time being the girl of a time-traveler (after Eric Bana and Owen Wilson), her American sweetheart default and clever dressing choice remarkably masks the age difference, while a baby-face Gleeson doesn't truly reflect the passing years in the narrative. There are also several interesting secondary players, the sexy bomb Margot Robbie appears as Tim's unrequited love interest, Lindsay Duncan sheds a light of coolness as Tim's unwitting mother, and Tom Hollander is the swearing playwright with a cynical bad temper. ABOUT TIME is Oscar- nominated writer Richard Curtis' third venture (the man who writes MR. BEAN series, BRIDGET JONES series, NOTTING HILL 1999, and FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL 1994, 7/10) as a director (after LOVE ACTUALLY 2003, 7/10 and PIRATE RADIO 2009), no wonder it is such a successful crowd-pleaser and even a tearjerker, only if its content could have made more sense out of the infinite loop impedes the time travel sub-genre.

Initial impressions of a book, film, play, piece of music etc. can sometimes be ill-considered. I have occasionally revised my opinion of such a work with the passage of time. I am confident, however, that I shall not change my view on "About Time", the sheer brilliance of which has quite bowled me over. It's not only one of the very best films I have seen recently. It's one of the best I have ever seen. Yes, I think it's that good.

"About Time" is a romantic comedy about the vicissitudes of life and love. It's witty, clever, intelligent and very funny. But it's also a film of perhaps quite surprising depth. The centrepiece of the film is the relationship between Tim (Domnhall Gleeson), a young lawyer living in London, and his father (Bill Nighy), who lives with Tim's mother (Lindsay Duncan) in Cornwall. Tim's father is able to time travel. He cannot change history when doing so; but he can revisit past experiences and incidents within his own life and alter their outcomes. Tim has inherited this ability from his father (a gift which apparently is hereditary on the male side of the family). He uses it to improve his love life. He builds up a strong bond and a young family with Mary (Rachel McAdams). But he soon realises that his exceptional gift does not protect him from the normal ups and downs of family life. Indeed, one of the most moving scenes in the film (and there are many) is a conversation Tim has with his father on learning that the latter has terminal cancer.

The performances, the screenplay, the direction and the soundtrack are first class. The humour is excellent. There is one very funny scene in which Tim nervously meets his prospective in-laws for the first time and blurts out an admission that he and Mary do not practise oral sex. There is also a very amusing sex scene. The soundtrack includes music performed by The Cure, Amy Winehouse and Nick Cave. Indeed, the featured Cave song, "Into My Arms", forms a motif for the themes depicted in the film and gets a specific mention by Tim's father when he is discussing his funeral arrangements with Tim.

"About Time" is a very watchable, intelligent and witty film that could so easily have descended to mawkishness and sentimentality. But it doesn't. It's a brilliant film that raises in the viewer's mind all sorts of important questions about life, love and loyalty. Do go and see it. 10/10.

Good concept. The acting is fine. BUT, there are some issues.

For one, both leads are miscast. The male lead here needs to be charming or funny, and while he seems like a fine actor, he's not that charming or that funny. I also don't understand why they felt like Rachel McAdams was a good casting choice. There's not enough background information about her character, and to put it mildly, there is absolutely NO chemistry between the two leads in the film.

THe film reminded me of "Mr. Nobody" - only it wasn't nearly as good.

I like the point of the film - which is that it's actually better to appreciate the less-than-perfect moments of your life, have no regrets, but just takes so long to get to this. It's spoonfed to the audience in the last 5 minutes like the film did a bad job of expressing it, AND IT DID! I also didn't care for some of 'the rules of time travel' which seemed like they were written on the fly.

I went in with high expectations, but that's not the only reason that this fell flat. 7.8? THis was no better than the slightly above-average "Delivery Man" that I also watched last night.

THe bottom-line is that I just didn't find anything interesting about these characters - other than the ever-so-obvious ability to travel in time. I'd probably skip it.

63/100

My husband accompanied me, but warned me that he would not stay if it didn't interest him after 15 minutes. He stayed, and gave me the summary, CHICK FLICK FOR MEN.

It's a fantasy because it deals with living in the present and the past at the same time. It's a romance because it's about young love, and love expressed between two people who have been married for a very long time and still feel that spark that brought them together. It's a family film about siblings loving one another so much that one of them might just jeopardize his future to save his sister's life. It's a cautionary tale for those who practice habits that could sicken them or get them killed. It's about life, and truly living one's life even when faced with the prospect of death.

The acting is solid, and Rachel McAdams is lovely and inspiring. The rest of the actors are amazing as well, and you want to believe that it is all real. But the story itself can be so unbelievable. Just go with it. It's like a really high calorie dessert that tastes so good you don't care if you gain five pounds. I enjoyed ABOUT TIME immensely, and I could watch it again and again.

I'm amazed this film has garnered as many high scores as it has, because it fails as a romance and fails in its time-travel premise.

Time-travel rarely works well in anything and the viewer often has to not think too hard and just go with it, but the mechanics this film chooses to use simply don't make sense.

If he went back in time into the mind of his younger self, okay, I could have bought it (as in The Butterfly Effect). But for his time-travelling self to appear, as a separate entity, in a wardrobe or other space makes no sense.

What's supposed to have happened to the "original him" in the time he travels back to? For example, he goes back to the New Year's party first thing. What if at the point he travels back he was in a crowded room. What happens to him? That "him" just pops out of existence and suddenly he comes downstairs from the cupboard like a bad magician on a talent show?

And when he goes back in the cupboard to travel back? Then what? Where's the rest of "him" from the time he just left? Waking up in a cupboard wondering how he got there?

It. Makes. No. Sense.

And romance? Don't make me laugh. It's so creepy to think he went back to his love-of-his-life's apartment for the first time, their "first time" together happens three times for him but only once for her. So what she thinks was their first time was his third time they'd done the deed? This doesn't strike anyone as disturbing?

And he lies and manipulates those closest to him all his life, changing things to suit him and only him? How romantic!

Oh but wait - he does suddenly try to take his sister back - succeeds - but then because it alters HIS life in a way he doesn't like (though dramatically altering hers) - nah, forget that, sis, go get hit by a car - you brought it all on yourself anyway! Not having you upsetting my perfect idyl!

A horrible film and a nonsense concept. I wish I could go back in time and never watch this garbage again.