About Time

[prettyxcool]

What happened, Richard Curtis? I love all your other films, but this one I don't! It was a cloying and sentimental story ("My son - my Dad!") about a boring family with maybe two genuine laughs - neither of which I can remember. Most actors were criminally underused ("Oh look, there's Tom Hollander, and he's acting grumpy!"), and the whole scenario is illogical.
[spoiler]For example, wasn't he told to be careful about going back in time as each sperm is different and he could end up with a different kid - and yet that somehow only applies after the baby is born? WTF?[/spoiler] As for the advice of living every day twice - you've got to be kidding me?
This could and should have been so much better. Gleeson really is no Hugh Grant - who might have made something out of that role. Just as well I had PXC to talk to on the balcony or I would have been really annoyed about wasting so much time waiting for this to start.
They announced before the film that no phones were allowed and they would stop the film if someone was caught - yeah, right. They would have had a riot on their hands. Also, they had set up a camera afterwards trying to get people to comment on the film - as far as I saw everyone was giving them a wide berth even though they promised to b*y people drinks, LOL.

6.5/10

Oh dear! I agree with you Beate, what happened Richard Curtis? I too love all your other films. It started well, sweet and amusing and then it got really tedious and overlong, yawn! Some good bits, the bond between dad and son was quite poignant, the wedding, but the dress scene, what was all that about, why so long and protracted and yawn!

5/10

Thanks Beate for saving me a seat and your company, and to continue where we left off from our picnic. I would have been quite unhappy too, to traipse all the way to 02 for this!

[claire]

Saw this last night
No where near as good as a normal Richard Curtis film
For me it would be perfect Sunday movie at HOME to watch
It was way too long.

But in little confused
[spoiler]ok he can't travel back in time before babies were born well
The first time how did he get the same little girl back???
And at the end how did they both travel to when he was a little boy but no one was changed ??[/spoiler]

Alright film 6/10 waaaayyyyy to long

Nice to see jeanelle quickly before

[elski]

Saw this last night
No where near as good as a normal Richard Curtis film
For me it would be perfect Sunday movie at HOME to watch
It was way too long.

But in little confused
[spoiler]ok he can't travel back in time before babies were born well
The first time how did he get the same little girl back???
And at the end how did they both travel to when he was a little boy but no one was changed ??[/spoiler]

Alright film 6/10 waaaayyyyy to long

Nice to see jeanelle quickly before

I think when[spoiler]he went back to ask his dad about it, at the point his little girl was born, he stayed there? that's how I could make sense of it but then he'd have to relive about a year. But I was wondering too.
and at the end when they said they'd risk it because they went to the beach and met no-one and felt nothing was ultimately changed just reliving a memory.[/spoiler]

[funthing29]

What was the point of this? It is not a rom-com nor a quirky British comedy. It was overlong and sappy – the last 20 minutes were pointless and melodramatic. I did not get sad or emotional watching these characters. This is the second film where Rachel McAdams plays the wife of a time traveller and yet The Time Traveller’s Wife was so much more effective at showing the repercussions of time travel rather than this sugar-coated representation where everything is peachy and there are no consequences from manipulating other people’s lives. 4/10.

I was more interested in spotting the various parts of London (as I used to work near Maida Vale/St John’s Wood) rather than following the film.

[prettyxcool]

I was more interested in spotting the various parts of London.

I was doing the same!

[LondonCityNights]

I was more interested in spotting the various parts of London.

I was doing the same!

At one point they actually walked through my workplace! I just wish it was in a better film.

[ajwilliams10]

I actually quite enjoyed it. Just don't go to the cinema expecting too much and you won't be disappointed!

[Filmlover]

So, I laughed really out loud, bursted into tears but glad it's dark, only that I can not go back in time...

[julieisbored]

I went into the screening expecting to hate it but actually found it pretty enjoyable. Not to taxing a few laughs and quite touching.
Surprising 6/10

[McG]

I liked the idea of the storyline but did find the first half laboured it. I must admit I got a little bored of watching scenes being repeated as I got the idea of the cupboard quickly and didn't need it to be constantly repeated. Contrary to most folk, I did enjoy the last 30 minutes as the story then had a conclusion. I didn't feel emotional about the final scene but liked it nevertheless as I wanted a good ending . . . and I think this was as good as you could get! A gentle wee film which does not tax the brain or emotions!
Marks 5/10

BTW Braehead was almost full tonight but I was astounded to see a mum bring 3 young boys between 5 and 9 to see this film! I know they did have the occasional toilet trip but I certainly can't imagine that the children got anything from this film. I was sitting far from them during the film and don't know how restless they were . . . I'm sure my kids would have been bored stiff! I know that parents do have difficulty sometimes with wanting to see "adult theme" films and not having a babysitter. I certainly remember being desperate to see a film that wasn't a cartoon but children are not young forever!