User Score
8.3

Universal acclaim- based on 253 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 14 out of 253
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 18, 2013
    5
    When he turns 21, the young man played by Domhnall Gleeson finds out he can travel back in time. In the course of this too long movie, he uses his power to create the perfect relationship with lovely Rachel McAdams. While the plot presents an interesting premise, writer/director Richard Curtis (Notting Hill, Four Weddings and a Funeral) exhibits none of the skills that made these otherWhen he turns 21, the young man played by Domhnall Gleeson finds out he can travel back in time. In the course of this too long movie, he uses his power to create the perfect relationship with lovely Rachel McAdams. While the plot presents an interesting premise, writer/director Richard Curtis (Notting Hill, Four Weddings and a Funeral) exhibits none of the skills that made these other efforts such a delight. The dialogue lacks spark, the "quirky" supporting characters are not and Gleeson doesn't have the comic chops or romantic charms to carry the load. The potential for sweet humor and captivating dramatic moments is set up, but as the movie progresses it becomes uninspired, predictable and flat. Expand
  2. Jan 14, 2014
    5
    When someone mentions time travel, this is not the movie you will think about. When someone mentions father-son relationship, this is not the movie you will think about. When someone says romance, this movie won't come to mind. In conclusion, there is nothing memorable about the film. It's got a very faulty time-travel premise and very under-developed characters except for the leadWhen someone mentions time travel, this is not the movie you will think about. When someone mentions father-son relationship, this is not the movie you will think about. When someone says romance, this movie won't come to mind. In conclusion, there is nothing memorable about the film. It's got a very faulty time-travel premise and very under-developed characters except for the lead character of Tim. Richard Curtis could, no, should do better. We all know, he can... Expand
  3. Jan 20, 2014
    6
    About Time was surprisingly watchable. The genre is not my thing and the romance and dialogue can be cheesy but it kept me engaged. The film had a nice lesson about love, a good premise, and some good acting. I wouldn’t recommend this movie to everyone as it is a chick-flick/date movie and romantic comedies are more a woman’s thing. However, if you are stuck watching this movie and you areAbout Time was surprisingly watchable. The genre is not my thing and the romance and dialogue can be cheesy but it kept me engaged. The film had a nice lesson about love, a good premise, and some good acting. I wouldn’t recommend this movie to everyone as it is a chick-flick/date movie and romantic comedies are more a woman’s thing. However, if you are stuck watching this movie and you are a dude it is not that bad. If you want to see a great romantic comedy watch When Harry Met Sally or if you want to see a great love story about life watch Up (especially the first ten minutes). This is a chick-flick for girls but the film is watchable. Expand
  4. Oct 30, 2014
    6
    ABOUT TIME is one half snappy romance and another half family drama which lures us into the tutelage of some very beneficial “Chicken Soup for the Soul“ truisms like “value your life and live everyday fully", "notice the beauty in the small things around you” and “be brave to say goodbye to the beloved and move on”, such and such. And under the sine qua non of a time-travel set-up.ABOUT TIME is one half snappy romance and another half family drama which lures us into the tutelage of some very beneficial “Chicken Soup for the Soul“ truisms like “value your life and live everyday fully", "notice the beauty in the small things around you” and “be brave to say goodbye to the beloved and move on”, such and such. And under the sine qua non of a time-travel set-up.

    continue reading my review on my blog: google cinema omnivore, thanks
    Expand
  5. Nov 17, 2013
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. About Time takes place in the cosy romantic Britain of Richard Curtis, where nervous middle class Englishmen fall head over heels for gorgeous American women. Curtis paints an idealised London of lawyers, playwrights, art galleries and vintage fashion. In the midst of it all is aspiring young lawyer Tim (Domhnall Gleeson), who arrives in the capital with new ambition, and a new ability.

    For Tim has just been told the family secret by his father (Bill Nighy). He, along with all the other men in his family, is a time traveller, and can rewrite his own history by travelling back to any point along his own timeline (but no killing Hitler). Nighy’s matter-of-fact exposition on this matter starts the film; along with Tim’s natural incredulity, it is a comic highlight.

    But this is a Richard Curtis project, and Tim’s future is not a chronicle of epic destiny, but a chance for him to finally meet the girl of his dreams. She arrives swiftly in the form of the expatriated Mary (Rachel McAdams).

    Gleeson shines as an atypical leading man, red haired, slightly gangly; at once identifiable and appealing to the audience. McAdams is pleasant, but her character is given little to do. Notably, she never discovers Tim’s big secret.

    Much of the humour comes from Tim’s courtship of Mary, during which he repeats awkward encounters and must meet her for the first time more than once (including a memorable date in London’s famously pitch-black Dans le Noir restaurant, a nifty cinematic experiment).

    The approach is reminiscent of that other great time travelling romantic comedy, the thoroughly brilliant Groundhog Day (1993). But Tim has a blessing, not a curse, and with complete control over his path, approaches with less cynicism and more “Let’s try that again, shall we?”

    So the blend of time travel with a romantic comedy is not entirely original. There is also an inevitable comparison with The Time Traveller’s Wife (2009), which also starred Rachel McAdams. Maybe she’s stuck in a time loop herself.

    As for specifics, the film directly asks you not to question it too much. “We don’t seem to have destroyed civilisation yet” says Nighy. Some rules rear their head as the narrative progresses, but it’s hard to know what the boundaries actually are, and I just watched Primer (2004).

    This is not a film about time travel, but a romantic comedy in which time travel furthers the plot. But it is about time: how we choose to spend it, and who we choose to spend it with. And while it’s a romance on the face of things, the more interesting relationship, and certainly the more poignant, is between Tim and his father.

    At times, it’s unashamedly sentimental. The entire film has a softness to it that makes you wonder if Curtis smeared Vaseline on the lens. Curtis even manages to turn a potentially day ruining downpour into a fresh and glorious celebration.

    The strength of the writing is in the ability to remain unexpected, and some of this is naturally due to the ability of time travel to allow unexpected things to happen. Conflict appears in unlikely places, and least of all in the relationship between Gleeson and McAdams.

    It’s not perfect, but for all the derivative and saccharine elements, the central father-son relationship is eloquent, and something rarely explored in this way, especially with this level of British reserve. Though the script is witty, it is only peppered with outright comedy (this is still gold, from the versatile Tom Hollander, fantastic as a jaded slovenly playwright, to Tim’s swift cycle through a series of potential best men, complete with appropriate speeches).

    Being relatively unfamiliar with his previous works (aside from classic television shows Blackadder and The Vicar of Dibley) About Time has at the very least inspired me to investigate Richard Curtis’s other films, which are apparently much stronger.
    Expand
Metascore
55

Mixed or average reviews - based on 34 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 34
  2. Negative: 3 out of 34
  1. Reviewed by: Mike Scott
    Nov 8, 2013
    80
    Maybe it's a touch twee, but Curtis' film is far too uplifting, too life-affirming and too good-natured to do anything but embrace.
  2. Reviewed by: Joe Williams
    Nov 7, 2013
    63
    There’s a lot of comic and fantasy potential here, but much of it gets squandered.
  3. Reviewed by: Anthony Lane
    Nov 6, 2013
    30
    What Rachel McAdams is doing in this nonsense is anyone's guess, but she must realize that the long journey from "Mean Girls" to Mary, with her mousy bangs and her timid pleas counts as a serious descent. [11 Nov. 2013, p.90]