About Time

[D-Fens]

But if this was the same movie in a working class setting, filmed in B&W by Shane Meadows (or is he rich too?) the philosophy would be exactly the same as social status isn't part of the plot, don't pursue riches because family/friends/relationships and life experiences are more important?

[LondonCityNights]

But if this was the same movie in a working class setting, filmed in B&W by Shane Meadows (or is he rich too?) the philosophy would be exactly the same as social status isn't part of the plot, don't pursue riches because family/friends/relationships and life experiences are more important?

If it was directed by Shane Meadows, filmed in black and white in a working class setting it would be a completely different film. Namely a better one.

The actions of the heroes in this film viewed with even a tiniest bit of thought and consideration makes them into villains. Curtis expects his audience to applaud manipulation, dishonesty and solipsism - all set to some dull as dishwater acoustic guitar. So there's some drippy Hallmark philosophy "you should appreciate stuff" at the centre - so what? If you produce a film that is about equal to a fortune cookie in conveying a message then you've failed as a film-maker. What next: "Believe in yourself and you can achieve anything!"?

[LondonCityNights]

Look, I get that the politics can be a bit heavy. And this is on a surface level just a sweet little love story.

Right, so we have a hero who has effectively lied to his wife every single day of their marriage, and systemically manipulated her life hundreds, if not thousands of times without ever even considering asking for her consent.

Is this romance?

[D-Fens]

In that context no but obviously the movie doesn't present it that way, we might have watched every time he travelled so it was tens rather than thousands of trips.

[yogi]

But if this was the same movie in a working class setting, filmed in B&W by Shane Meadows (or is he rich too?) the philosophy would be exactly the same as social status isn't part of the plot, don't pursue riches because family/friends/relationships and life experiences are more important?

If it was directed by Shane Meadows, filmed in black and white in a working class setting it would be a completely different film. Namely a better one.

The actions of the heroes in this film viewed with even a tiniest bit of thought and consideration makes them into villains. Curtis expects his audience to applaud manipulation, dishonesty and solipsism - all set to some dull as dishwater acoustic guitar. So there's some drippy Hallmark philosophy "you should appreciate stuff" at the centre - so what? If you produce a film that is about equal to a fortune cookie in conveying a message then you've failed as a film-maker. What next: "Believe in yourself and you can achieve anything!"?

If privelage was a barrier to empathising with characters or them telling a human story or just entertaining the audience then Woody Allen or Curtis himself would have long ago been out of work.

I'm not sure I agree completely with you, but just the fact it got you thinking this probably means that something wasn't working in the story.

[LondonCityNights]

In that context no but obviously the movie doesn't present it that way, we might have watched every time he travelled so it was tens rather than thousands of trips.

That's precisely my argument. The movie doesn't present it that way - and it should.

Put yourself in his wife's shoes: how would you react if you found out, after having 3 or 4 children and a happy marriage, that your husband had not only been keeping from you that he can travel back in time, but that he's used it to change huge parts of your life - including forcibly separating you from a boyfriend that you were apparently very much in love with. I'd react with horror - how could you EVER trust that person again? The whole relationship is built upon lies. Even if you somehow found out accidentally, he'd just travel back and ensure that you didn't. Her life is not her own; she's effectively his pet, trapped in an invisible, inescapable cage.]

If Richard Curtis considers this romantic he has a sick mind.

It's true, the film is a lot like Groundhog Day, but it's the film in inverse. Whereas Phil Connors starts as an arsehole and realises through time travel that true happiness is found in helping others, Tim begins as a nice guy and is slowly transformed into a worse person as the story goes on.

And considering he says at the end that he lives every day twice, and there's numerous implied moments where he fixes something, it's reaching just a bit to say we might have seen the only times he time travelled in the film itself.

[D-Fens]

He meets his wife first though, completely naturally. He loses her by helping his playwright friend, in the meantime she meets another guy. She's portrayed as being particularly needy, which may not be right but it serves the plot. He stops them meeting and we see that her first impression of the other guy is that he is a dick. The film is structured so it's 'morally' in the right on this vital part?

When we see the 'same day twice' scenes, he actually does very little, it's more about his own change of attitude to the same scenario.

[trickydicky123]

If I could travel back in time, I'd go back to 9.30 this morning and stay in bed, instead of going to watch this turgid, made for Americans, insulting, humourless (why do people laugh when some upper class ponce says 'oh fack'?! - I swear all the effin time and it never raises a titter!) smug, steaming pile of crap! 0/10...........and it was lucky to get nil!

[Ali_anex]

We went today to see this movie.
I'd say its watchable, mildly amusing, and slightly better than I thought it would be.
Would I watch it again? Nope!
Am I glad I didn't p*y to see it? Absolutely :)

[LondonCityNights]

He meets his wife first though, completely naturally. He loses her by helping his playwright friend, in the meantime she meets another guy. She's portrayed as being particularly needy, which may not be right but it serves the plot. He stops them meeting and we see that her first impression of the other guy is that he is a dick. The film is structured so it's 'morally' in the right on this vital part?

When we see the 'same day twice' scenes, he actually does very little, it's more about his own change of attitude to the same scenario.

Yeah she thinks the guy's a dick - and she may well be better off without him - but it should be her decision to dump him, not Tim's (who by this point has spoken to her only twice and is pretty much a stranger).

There's SO much stuff like this [spoiler](including him technically timemurdering his son because he wants his daughter back!)[/spoiler] that it's difficult to ascribe it to sheer ineptitude. This is how Richard Curtis must see the world: a neverending parade of easily manipulated mooks, unable to make decisions on their own who need an ubermensch like himself to tell them how to feel.