About Time

[newdot]

It's nice / not nice that you guys are putting more thought into this movie than Richard Curtis did.

[Beate]

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.

While this is an interesting discussion, can you please keep in mind that a lot of people have NOT seen the film yet and you are discussing large parts of the plot. Can we please not have any more spoilers, unless you put them in spoiler tags? Thank you.

[D-Fens]

There's SO much stuff like this

[spoiler]In both instances he goes back to correct his own mistakes. He has the perfect first date and then accidentally erases it, he has the perfect child in his eyes and then changes it. Sequentially and in the context of the movie he's fixing things that would have still happened if he couldn't time travel.[/spoiler]

[midian]

Oh wow, great discussion going on here.

I really disliked this film. i thought it just boring and far too long for a story without much dramtic action. i did not empathise with any of the characters or develop any curiousity about them as it was obvious that it was all about being 'nice' (in the blandest sense of the word) with all things turning out ok and nothing really at stake [spoiler]because it can, ultimately, be fixed. even the final goodbye of death is not necessarily permanent until you want it to be[/spoiler]

but i did like the crazy uncle as would have liked some backstory on that but all he got were funny/tragic one liners.

then i read LondonCityNights' take on it [spoiler]yes he was a self-serving manipulative, wrong-child murderer. but he was also so 'nice' that we are not encouraged to examine his motives[/spoiler]. and think he raises some very valid points if i could have been bothered to read deeper.

when i left the cinema there was someone interviewing two late-teen girls gushing it was 'beautiful' to camera. but i also heard them giggling when the camera turned to look for the next talking head. they shook their head and said the opposite, and starting talking about why they thought it was a bit rubbish (too long, boring!).

[D-Fens]

until you want it to be

[spoiler]I thought that was an interesting way of looking at time in that it exists until you choose to move on with a new life.[/spoiler]

he raises some very valid points if i could have been bothered to read deeper.

You're not supposed to read deeper though, it's not part of the subtext of the movie that it can be read in a hugely negative way that's something people are bringing to it themselves. They should watch the whole movie again with a more positive outlook to see how enjoyable it is with a slight attitude change

[neechofish]

he raises some very valid points if i could have been bothered to read deeper.

You're not supposed to read deeper though, it's not part of the subtext of the movie that it can be read in a hugely negative way that's something people are bringing to it themselves. They should watch the whole movie again with a more positive outlook to see how enjoyable it is with a slight attitude change [/quote]

As is the films message.....

I enjoyed it but Probably wouldn't watch it again. A couple of funny moments. Nice to see a fresh faced lead who wasn't godlike in looks but wearing a pair of glasses to make him unattractive.

[LondonCityNights]

until you want it to be

[spoiler]I thought that was an interesting way of looking at time in that it exists until you choose to move on with a new life.[/spoiler]

he raises some very valid points if i could have been bothered to read deeper.

You're not supposed to read deeper though, it's not part of the subtext of the movie that it can be read in a hugely negative way that's something people are bringing to it themselves. They should watch the whole movie again with a more positive outlook to see how enjoyable it is with a slight attitude change

I'm not reading deeply into it. I'm just describing the actions of the lead as they're depicted on screen. It's the movie's fault that they're monstrous.

[Yinster]

Saw this last night in one of the Cineworld Unlimited screenings.

I didn't think it was that bad a film though it's not great. Run of the mill. Groundhog Day is a better film in my opinion of you want to do second chances. And that is exactly what this film was really. From what I saw he was an average bloke who just did what any other average bloke would do. And please don't tell me he isn't an average bloke simply cos Curtis has him as a lawyer in London and of middle class. They still all want the same things as other people. Love and to be loved. We see him trying to get the girl of his dream. If someone who he loves is in trouble then he tries to save them.

5/10

[eumenides]

I was going to avoid it but now I'm absolutely going to have to watch this film given the above heated discussion. It can't be worse than The Big Wedding. Or The Boat that Rocked.

[valda]

Well it was far too long for a start. I could have done with a good 25 mins being cut out. For me it wasn't a comedy, sure there were a few funny ish lines but that was it.

You know when you're bored, when you are trying to figure out where they were supposed to be living! Maida Vale Tube, but living in Notting Hill area Good to see the fantastic Tom Hollander again

BTW that was Brendan Gleeson's son in the lead role.

5/10