Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Religious Music & Entertainment
Review: About Time (dir. Richard Curtis, 2013)

Review: About Time (dir. Richard Curtis, 2013)

Last updated on: October 31, 2013 at 1:24 pm by Peter T. Chattaway

Review: About Time (dir. Richard Curtis, 2013) 2013-10-31T13:24:08-07:00 Peter T. Chattaway

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Poor Rachel McAdams. She just can’t get a man to stay with her in the moment.

Four years ago she was The Time Traveler’s Wife, living her life in a single linear direction while her husband lurched forwards and backwards within their relationship.

Now, in About Time, she’s married to a guy who keeps jumping back in time and making changes to her life: preventing her from meeting the man who became her boyfriend on an earlier timeline, tricking her into thinking that their second or third (and increasingly awesome) time in the sack was actually their first, fine-tuning his marriage proposal until he gets precisely the answer he wants, and so on.

At least this time she’s in a romantic comedy written and directed by Richard Curtis, who is nothing if not a crowd-pleaser. As the writer of Four Weddings and a Funeral and Notting Hill, the writer-director of Love Actually, and a scribe on countless British TV shows, he knows a thing or two about keeping the audience entertained.

So entertained, in fact, that in the case of About Time, you can almost forget the awful morality of the film’s main protagonist.

The film revolves around a man named Tim (Domhnall Gleeson, son of Brendan; he played one of the Weasley boys in the last two Harry Potter films), who at the age of 21 is told by his father (the always watchable Bill Nighy, whose cadences here got me thinking that he might be the British Christopher Walken) that the men in their family have a secret: they can travel through time, simply by going into a dark place, closing their fists, and thinking of where — or, rather, when — they’d like to go.

The mechanics of all this are not explained very well, nor are they portrayed consistently within the film.

For example, when you go back in time, do you arrive in the dark place where you began the trip (thereby making the original you vanish from wherever you were, which might come as a shock to any bystanders)? Or do you simply transfer your later consciousness to the body that you had at the time, wherever it happened to be, like the protagonist in The Butterfly Effect? Both things happen in this film, if memory serves, and there seems to be no reason for the inconsistency beyond the filmmakers doing whatever they felt was “right” dramatically in any given scene.

Also, Tim’s dad says Tim can’t go into the future, meaning the part of Tim’s life that Tim has not lived through yet, but apparently Tim can come back to the present after going to the past — even when the present is radically different because of Tim’s actions in the past. So that’s still sort of like traveling to the future, yes? I mean, he’s basically created a new timeline and jumped into the future of that timeline, right?

And if Tim is jumping from the past to the radically altered present, how does he live his new life on the timeline between those two points? He doesn’t appear to have lived it on autopilot, like Adam Sandler did when he fast-forwarded through his life in Click, but he doesn’t remember having any of the new experiences — or making any of the new choices — that he had or made on the new timeline, either.

Later in the film, we learn that Tim can take people back in time with him, too — and that he can restore the past after he’s made some unintentionally drastic changes to it. So why doesn’t he do either of these things more often?

And so on, and so on.

You might think that having a power like time-travel would have massive, even global, repercussions — but Curtis keeps things fairly small-scale. He establishes right off the bat that Tim’s family is fairly well-off, thanks to one of Tim’s ancestors, and that they keep to themselves pretty much, though they do have friends ’round for visits.

So instead of finding himself caught up in a worldwide conspiracy, like the protagonist who could teleport himself all over the globe in Jumper, Tim is free to focus on what any slightly awkward guy in his early 20s would focus on: getting a girlfriend.

It’s certainly amusing to see Tim use his power, like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, to learn what sort of pick-up lines would work on a girl, and then go back in time and use them on her before she’s had a chance to get to know him. But the stakes aren’t particularly high in the early scenes. It’s when Tim meets Mary (McAdams) and things start to get serious that they also become somewhat morally disquieting.

And in fact, I actually had qualms with this aspect of the film from fairly early on in Tim and Mary’s relationship.

The fact that Tim steals Mary away from a party just before her future-boyfriend shows up can sort of be justified on the basis that Mary didn’t meet that boyfriend on the original timeline anyway. Tim originally met Mary when she was still available, and it was only after he went back in time to help one of his friends that Mary met the other guy, so you could always argue that Tim is just restoring things to the way they were.

But then what? The first time Tim and Mary have sex, it’s awkward and not very satisfying — as it is indeed for most people the first time they have sex — and Mary is actually very understanding about it. But that’s not good enough for Tim, so he goes back in time and has sex with Mary for the “first” time all over again.

Tim gets the benefit of memory and experience with Mary, but Mary does not share equally in the relationship in that regard. She does not share Tim’s memories of mutual discovery. And you can’t help thinking that, from that point on, every time Mary turns one of their conversations back to this key moment in their lives, Tim will have to clam up or admit that he’s been lying to her this whole time.

The fact that Tim is exploiting Mary’s lack of memory regarding the early stages of their relationship is made all the more striking by the fact that, just last year in The Vow, McAdams played a woman who loses her memory in a car accident — thus requiring her husband to woo her all over again. For the husband of that film, the fact that she could not remember key moments from their life together was a deep wound that needed to be healed, not something that worked in the husband’s favour.

But the key scene for me — the scene where I really came to dislike Tim, at least for the next few scenes — comes after Tim and Mary have been living together for a while, and Tim goes out one evening and bumps into a girl that he had flirted with once.

Will Tim cheat on Mary? The possibility is presented to him, and, since he knows that he literally has more than one chance to accept the offer — simply by going back and reliving the evening — he abruptly leaves the girl hanging and dashes back home to propose to Mary. The implication seems to be that, if Mary says yes, then fine, Tim will stick with what he’s got, but if Mary says no, then, well, who’s to say how Tim might try to relive that evening (or the days leading up to that evening)?

I suppose we should be grateful that Tim’s first response isn’t to go through with the de facto adultery and then go back in time and prevent it from ever happening. But still, just the fact that he seems to be entertaining the idea and keeping it in his back pocket, as it were, undermines the scene for me. What does Tim plan to do if Mary says no to his proposal? Erase their relationship entirely? Leave her hanging?

The whole point of living a life connected to other people is that we are not the centres of our worlds. Other people — their lives and experiences — matter too. And this is a point that Tim seems utterly oblivious to for far too long.

So, I had some problems with the first half of the film. But then, after Tim and Mary get married and start having kids, things begin to get interesting, as Tim’s focus begins to shift back towards the family that he was born into.

As a life-long advocate for films about adult-brother relationships, I was struck by a subplot in which Tim tries to repair the damage that his younger sister Kit Kat (Lydia Wilson) has done to her life — only to find that he cannot fix her past without losing his own.

And I was especially struck by the affection that is shown between Tim and his dad as the film moves towards its conclusion.

In fact, calling About Time a “romantic comedy” may, in fact, be something of a misnomer: while romance and humour are there throughout the entire film, the wedding between Tim and Mary takes place somewhere in the middle, not the end. And the film thankfully eschews that romcom formula whereby the last 15 minutes are spent watching the couple break up and, inevitably, get back together.

Instead, the film matures from a mere romcom into something older and wiser, as Tim and his dad have some heart-to-hearts that end up becoming lessons for all of us in how to live, period, enjoying each moment for what it is.

Which is not to say that the father-son relationship is problem-free, either. There is, in fact, a rather striking moment where the film briefly adopts the father’s point of view and shows him going back in time and changing a small but key moment in Tim’s life. But it’s such a small change, and the father clearly does it as an expression of love for his son, that even a stickler like me has a hard time holding it against the guy.

The actors are all certainly very charming, and the film has some rather memorable moments, such as the scene where Tim and Mary meet for the very first time, in a restaurant where meals are served, in the dark, by blind waiters.

And it’s hard to dislike any film that has you humming an old Waterboys song for weeks afterwards — especially when the song hints at the yearning we all feel to make our time together last just a little bit longer.

So, the film ultimately left me in a good place, and for that I’m thankful. But if I could just go back, knowing what I know now, and make a few changes to the earlier part of the film… No, best just to leave it where it is. Right?

Previous Post

October 29, 2013

How do you promote a Bible epic when you're not religious?

Next Post

November 1, 2013 The latest attempt to film all four gospels word-for-word

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Anglican Planet Articles BC Christian News BC Report Bible Movies Bible Review Blog Books & Culture Campus Times CBC Radio Christianity Today ChristianWeek Essays Faith Today Festival Cinemas Guide Film Journals Georgia Straight Interviews MB Herald National Catholic Register Salvationist Today's Christian Two Chairs Ubyssey Uncategorized Vancouver Courier Vancouver Sun

Select a Month August 2025 April 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 May 2024 February 2024 December 2023 May 2023 March 2023 November 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 July 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 April 2012 January 2012 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 November 2003 October 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 March 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 September 2001 August 2001 July 2001 June 2001 April 2001 March 2001 February 2001 December 2000 November 2000 October 2000 September 2000 August 2000 July 2000 June 2000 May 2000 April 2000 March 2000 January 2000 October 1999 August 1999 May 1999 April 1999 February 1999 January 1999 December 1998 November 1998 October 1998 August 1998 July 1998 June 1998 April 1998 March 1998 January 1998 November 1997 September 1997 July 1997 June 1997 April 1997 March 1997 February 1997 January 1997 December 1996 October 1996 September 1996 June 1996 March 1996 February 1996 January 1996 April 1995 November 1994 September 1994 September 1991

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which church tradition celebrates the Feast of Epiphany as "Three Kings' Day"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Western Christianity Baptist Eastern Christianity Quakerism