Well, I did finally, after too many technical difficulties, get to watch The Time Traveler's Wife the other night. I had actually planned to watch it on a night when my husband was working, but had trouble with the dvd player, so he humored me and sort of half watched it with me the next night.
I am sorry to say it was 101 Dalmatians all over again. The more I think about it, the more I disappointed I am in the screen adaptation (as they say). I didn't really buy the chemistry between Rachael McAdams and Eric Bana (though I did love her as Clare) and I thought he was pretty boring as Henry.
The screenwriter took an interesting take, showing the movie mostly from Henry's perspective. I think that decision made the movie much darker than the book. It reminded me of other sad movies, like Leaving Las Vegas for some reason-maybe all the dark pauses between scenes. At one point, I thought I was watching a made for tv movie and a commercial was coming.
I also wonder if the movie took the plot it did because some of the book was a little creepy- like when Henry and Clare tied up and tortured the high school guy, or just Clare being in love with a man in his forties when she was still just a child. What didn't really play out as too creepy in the book could have been super creepy in the movie. Though I loved seeing "Burger" as Gomez, I missed the development of his relationship with Clare from the book.
The moral of this story, I guess, is that books are just better. I was thinking of some other books that were ruined when they were made into movies, and the first one that came to mind was "House of the Spirits" by Isabel Allende. Again, great book, terrible movie. I suppose I will just keep reading.