MovieChat Forums > About Time (2013) Discussion > IMO, the worst movie ever... Let me elab...

IMO, the worst movie ever... Let me elaborate.

posted 11 years ago by domii
95 replies | jump to latest

I don't write a lot here, as I believe there are much smarter and more eloquent people who can give better reviews of the movies. But I felt compelled after watching this catastrophy of a movie. I can see why it is so popular - it ticks all the boxes with the dialogues and the situations characters are put in, for a romantic movie. Problem is, they all seem like they are shoved down your throat, with no subtlety, or even intelligence. I could not believe that the director, or the actors for that fact, thought that what they were doing would look and sound good, and believable, for us viewers. Male lead - totally miscast. He looks like a 16 year old kid, and there was absolutely no chemistry whatsoever between him and R. McAdams at any point of the movie. Everything seemed so rushed, out of place, not one situation seemed natural. R. McAdams seemed so plastic, usually I like her in such movies (I've seen the Notebook and the Vow, and I watch many of the movies like this, so it's not like I hate the genre). It seemed like she was trying so much to be this likable, innocent, a bit goofy girl, with a big smile, "look at me, I'm so nice and everybody should like me", that it was extremely irritating and not natural at all. I honestly doubt that she can really act, outside of movies like this. It seems like she is not even trying any more. The situations they went through, the proposal, all the efforts from the guy, it all seemed so rushed and again, not natural, with no chemistry, that it seemed like a generic movie with no soul, like they wanted to put great locations, dialogues that just seemed smart and actors that all would like, and mix it up in this horrible, horrible mix that should be a movie. It's like some music these days - generic, like being made by a computer algorithm in which you put some characteristics in and then you have a new hit that masses will like, and it will top the charts for couple of weeks, and then it will dissapear forever. Terrible, just terrible. And why I say it's the worst ever? Of course, there are many who could fit that description. But since they had a huge budget for this, it is an embarrasment with what they came up with. The director, the writer(s), and the actors. So here are my two cents on the movie, hope I don't get bashed too much but it is my opinion, and if you don't like it, hey, were all entitled to have one. Cheers.

[–] andayuna 11 years ago

I watch the movie expect nothing too smart or intelligent coming out of it. Well, i can say that for all romance movies. I agree with you that there's a lot of plot holes. But i can see what they're trying to brought to the audience.
I don't like certain aspect of the movie, but I like it as a whole.

[–] 9-1 11 years ago

The people giving feedback on your post this far either are childish or have not yet learnt the acronym IMO. I cant see how anyone can argue with "your opinion", cause that´s yours and you never just said "this IS the worst movie ever".

In MY opinion, this is not the worst movie ever, but I totally agree with everything you say. No chemistry whatsoever between characters, (beside the fact with the looks you pointed out). The audience never gets a chance to see why these two persons are attracted to eachother cause the scenes moves on so fast, the many scenes where people laugh and smile almost all the time feels staged, the mix (romance, drama, comedy... timetravelling?) is too weird, and the dialogue is just shallow (trying to be smart and funny). All together I´d say the "pace" of the movie is just ridiculous.

It´s really hard to see that this is the same Richard Curtis who wrote the great romantic movies "Notting Hill", "Love Actualy" and "Four weddings and a Funeral". I saw much similarity between the character "Tim" and the charcters played in the three mentioned films starring Hugh Grant (who was really wonderful in the Curtis movies). But Gleeson is no Grant - far from it.

I like McAdams in Mean Girls, The Notebook and Wedding Crashers but for the last ten years she havent done anything good. This is just as average as her other (?!) time-travelling movie (The Time Traveler's Wife).

It´s really hard to see why people get so emotionally connected to this movie...

[–] DanSilov 11 years ago

Well, I wouldn't say it's the worst movie ever, but I have to agree with you, it's not good. Most of the reasons you stated are valid, the movie just tries to hard to hard to _teach you_ without trying to show real characters. Plus, as it's often with British movies, 'About Time' gives this really depressing vibe, as if everyone will die soon, and there's nothing that can be done.

[–] ivanmessimilos 11 years ago

Great movie, chick flick that is NOT a chick flick.You can watch it with your girlfriend and u wont be bored. 8/10

[–] MrAnderson101 11 years ago

The problem I have with the opening post isn't that it is of a different opinion to me (some people like a film, some hate it, that is life) - however, a lot of the opening post rant is about Rachel McAdams. A lot of other posts in this thread are also about her.

People seem to be forgetting that the actual supporting role in this movie was the father in the story, Rachel's role was key to the guy finding happiness in his life (she personifies his happiness) but it's his relationship with his Dad and the use of his time travel that is actually the story.

If you didn't like this film because it wasn't as good as the notebook or because Rachel McAdams plays the same roles...you clearly were just expecting this to be a "boy meets girl" movie and in the end got confused when it was actually a touching father and son story :)

[–] daveg-13 11 years ago

Although I did like the movie, it felt a bit unnatural. It's to neat, nothing really bad happens. I kept thinking, ok, he went back in time, now he screwed up the future. And sometimes he did, but he'd just return and fix it.

The only real thing was his dad dying. And I found their final scene the most touching as a result. And although I liked the chemistry between Tim and Mary, I couldn't help but think her impressions of him were fake. After all, he did change a lot of them.

"Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

[–] patrickbohn 11 years ago

It's to neat, nothing really bad happens.

This was the major flaw in the film, IMO. I liked the movie, and understand that it wanted to avoid the whole "change one thing" complexity that can come up with this time-travel angle.

But like you wrote, by doing that, the characters don't face any conflict with regard to what they do. There are no downsides to their choice to go back in time, no tough calls to be made as to if you should do it or not. You just go back in time, fix what you want, and then poof it's better.

Sure, you can't fix every problem. Was it sad when he realized he couldn't go see his father after he died? Yes, but it's hard to make a viewer feel sympathetic toward that when it's the same problem we all have, and the main character got all those extra days between his father's death and the birth of his child.

Time-travel basically either fixes the problem, or leaves you in the same boat you would be in if you couldn't do it. Even the first time, when it created the issue of him never meeting the girl, it fixed it for him not long after.

As I said, I liked the film, I just wish they hadn't created a device that makes the characters' lives awesome and doesn't have any ill effects. Introduce some conflict with the time-travel itself that makes the characters hesitant to use it.

[–] giovanavers 11 years ago

i can't disagree with you more

[–] markANTHONYgb 11 years ago

Maybe because I don't watch a lot of movies like this is the reason why I feel more or less the exact opposite of everything you wrote. I very much enjoyed this movie.

I thought McAdams did a great job at coming across as likable, innocent, a bit goofy, and having a big smile. So for me she tried the right amount. And I did think there was enough chemistry between her and the lead. I also thought the lead was well cast. They had me drawn in and caring.

I do agree that it did seem a little rushed, but there was a lot of story to tell so I can forgive this.

Well done though, I respect your post and your opinions. Apart from the trolly title which I suspect you chose to draw people in.

--
I'm leaving you, Jerry. I'm leaving you - and I'm taking the monkey with me.

[–] mrcibubur 11 years ago

It is a pity, not sure a travesty, that there are forum members who think this movie is the worst movie ever. Nothing about the movie would ever win an Oscar but the story, acting and overall entertainment are far from dismissive and for a Sunday afternoon viewing without any 'in your face' sex, violence or bad language (though admittedly there were a smattering of swear words)and a moderation of moral messaging about relationships, the movie was a good serving.

Bill Nighy, I recall, played a role in 'Song for Marion' which i watched over Christmastime.

Faulting the actors for their performances in this movie is absurd. They did what they had to do, plain and simple, as one poster elaborated, he made him laugh and cry and took him through the circle of life. It did that for me too but it did not make the earth move and I shall perhaps not remember the movie in 10 years time, unlike 'Midnight in Paris' and 'Time Travellers Wife' which I enjoyed no more or less than this.

In the world of entertainment about Time Travel, nothing surpasses 'Doctor Who', any Brit worth his salt knows that butthe box office does not lie, given promotions, and this film is no box office flop.