Groundhog Day (2013)

Groundhog Day is the latest from Richard Curtis—the guy behind Love Actually and Manhattan. It’s pretty much what you’d expect from his usual style.

The story follows young Tim (Domhnall Gleeson), who finds out the guys in his family can travel (only) back in time—so he tries to use that to fix his life and, well, find a girlfriend. Naturally, the lovely Mary (Rachel McAdams) shows up soon enough...

It’s a sweet, charming little flick that actually made me laugh quite a bit—solid rom-com territory, really. But honestly? The total lack of actual conflict started to grate on me by the end. Stretching a movie with zero real stakes to two hours felt a bit much.

6/10

More details here:
http://passpopcorn.com/2013/12/09/we...out-time-2013/

I really enjoyed it. Two pleasant hours at the theater watching a charming film. Kudos to Curtis. 🙂

"Time travel" isn't exactly my favorite sci-fi trope—it usually just leads to plot holes and logical nonsense—but I have to admit, they navigated the pitfalls quite skillfully here. They didn't just limit his jumps to places he’s actually been (the situations he was personally involved in), but they also managed to de-emphasize the mechanics of the travel itself—much to the chagrin of hardcore sci-fi nerds, I suppose. There aren't any tired cliches involving two versions of the same person running into each other or those high-stakes thriller sequences where someone gets caught. The whole point of this movie is simply about living in the moment and appreciating life—family, friends, romance, all that. My one real gripe is the runtime; honestly, there was no need to stretch this to two hours. A tight 90 minutes would have kept things simple and charming, which probably would've earned it a higher score from me.

ps. Rachel McAdams is, as always, 😍

Rating: 6/10

First off, I have to say, I genuinely enjoyed the film.

But there is one particular detail that keeps gnawing at me... the protagonist's father explicitly tells him he must not travel back to any point before his own child's birth. And for most of the story, he honors that rule.

Yet, toward the end of the movie, the two of them decide to head back to the era when the son was just an infant!

What on earth?

Honestly, I didn't quite catch that part either—maybe he thought he wasn't allowed to interfere with the conception process, or something along those lines, specifically regarding his daughter...🤷

So, if I’m reading this right, the old guy basically said even one tiny tweak can flip everything upside down. But they just went back to that beach and did the exact same thing—they were happy, holding hands, just vibing. It’s like they just wanted to relive that one perfect, carefree moment since they remembered it being so good.
I know, I know, it's a stretch, but you can't really nitpick a time travel flick. Those movies are always a total mess logic-wise anyway.

The real head-scratcher for me is why he can only go back to when the kid was born. Like, biology doesn't work like that. If you're messing with time, you'd need a cutoff date at least nine months earlier just to make sure nothing accidentally changes during conception.

@Rachel Ortiz33
An excellent observation. 👍

I have to admit, this is one of those rare movies where I actually decided to turn it off halfway through. The dialogue just felt incredibly forced, and honestly, the script simply wasn't clicking for me.

For me, it feels like a bit of a letdown from Curtis. He’s such a legend for everything he’s been doing since the early 80s—think about cult classics like not The CNN News and The Black Adder—through to the late 90s. While Manhattan didn't exactly blow me away, it definitely had more charm than this little attempt. And don't even get me started on how Four Weddings & a Funeral is an absolute masterpiece compared to About Time. Plus, the chemistry between Grant and McDowell is just incomparable to what we see here. Even though I find Rachel McAdams to be the most endearing actress of the bunch, she just can't shine when there isn't, at the very least, a worthy leading man opposite her.

This was a lovely little movie to unwind with on a Sunday afternoon. 🙂
If you want to nitpick, sure, there are a few plot holes—as you'd expect with any time-travel flick—but it’s perfectly fine for a single viewing if you just want to sit back and smile during the credits... truly wonderful. 🙂

It seems rather redundant to see Rachel McAdams cast once again to play the role of a time traveler's wife.

Rachel Ortiz33 said:So, if I’m reading this right, the old guy basically said even one tiny tweak can flip everything upside down. But they just went back to that beach and did the exact same thing—they were happy, holding hands, just vibing. It’s like they just wanted to relive that one perfect, carefree moment since they remembered it being so good.
I know, I know, it's a stretch, but you can't really nitpick a time travel flick. Those movies are always a total mess logic-wise anyway.

The real head-scratcher for me is why he can only go back to when the kid was born. Like, biology doesn't work like that. If you're messing with time, you'd need a cutoff date at least nine months earlier just to make sure nothing accidentally changes during conception.

Maybe it’s because he doesn't care about the biological specifics since he hasn't even met the kid yet.🤷

nimblemason3 said:Groundhog Day is the latest from Richard Curtis—the guy behind Love Actually and Manhattan. It’s pretty much what you’d expect from his usual style.

The story follows young Tim (Domhnall Gleeson), who finds out the guys in his family can travel (only) back in time—so he tries to use that to fix his life and, well, find a girlfriend. Naturally, the lovely Mary (Rachel McAdams) shows up soon enough...

It’s a sweet, charming little flick that actually made me laugh quite a bit—solid rom-com territory, really. But honestly? The total lack of actual conflict started to grate on me by the end. Stretching a movie with zero real stakes to two hours felt a bit much.

6/10

More details here:
http://passpopcorn.com/2013/12/09/we...out-time-2013/

The fundamental issue with the film lies in the writers' inability to maintain internal logic. They simply fail to stick to their own established rules, specifically regarding the protagonist's return to his own future.
It was likely done to accelerate the pacing... but if we are strictly discussing the past, then that is how it ought to be. Otherwise, you run the risk of triggering a new sequence of logical fallacies within an already paradoxical time travel narrative.

There are various cinematic techniques employed to facilitate a FastForward progression of the narrative.

Like you guys said... the movie is a bit messy, but honestly, I loved it. Those two hours flew by in a heartbeat. I even teared up at the end. 😬

Gerald Wright8 said:Maybe it’s because he doesn't care about the biological specifics since he hasn't even met the kid yet.🤷

What are you even talking about?
It’s wild how just one single sperm out of a million basically decides everything about who that kid becomes.
That’s basically what goes down when you're hooking up.
Man, you clearly aren't getting it. I really don't have the energy to break it all down for you...

This movie is just sickeningly sweet. From the jump, they hit you with those slightly off-kilter but "harmonious" family shots set to piano and acoustic guitar... ugh. But the absolute dumbest part? Watching Richard E. Grant totally blank on his lines! And not a single extra or co-star even tried to whisper him a prompt or help him improvise. Nope, our "hero" had to just sit there and fail. Absolute garbage. Total joke.

I watched this movie today and I am absolutely thrilled by it! I don't typically watch films of this genre, but I happened to stumble upon this one, and it might just be the spark that starts a new interest for me. Even the little logical inconsistencies regarding time travel didn't spoil the experience at all because, as someone else mentioned, those details really take a backseat to the story. All in all, it was such an engaging film that if it had been two hours longer, I probably would have watched the whole thing without feeling like I'd wasted a single second. It’s a solid 10/10 for me, and I will definitely revisit it in a year or so just to lift my spirits.

Rachel Ortiz33 said:What are you even talking about?
It’s wild how just one single sperm out of a million basically decides everything about who that kid becomes.
That’s basically what goes down when you're hooking up.
Man, you clearly aren't getting it. I really don't have the energy to break it all down for you...

I suppose he meant that it doesn't really matter which specific sperm it is, since he never actually saw or met this child before the trip back in time.

Rachel Ortiz33 said:What are you even talking about?
It’s wild how just one single sperm out of a million basically decides everything about who that kid becomes.
That’s basically what goes down when you're hooking up.
Man, you clearly aren't getting it. I really don't have the energy to break it all down for you...

first off, why the hostility?

second, the woman is still pregnant.

so, she can travel if she wants—it doesn't matter how those sperm traveled at the moment of conception, because the baby hasn't even been born yet.

Gerald Wright8 said:first off, why the hostility?

second, the woman is still pregnant.

so, she can travel if she wants—it doesn't matter how those sperm traveled at the moment of conception, because the baby hasn't even been born yet.

firstly, why use a heavy word like "hostility" when there are way more chill ways to say it 😛

it hasn't been born, sure, but its path is already set. go ahead and play with that logic, even if he hasn't met the little guy yet.

Pretty solid little flick. It’s got that breezy, charming British vibe—super gentle and relaxing. Honestly, feels like a bit of therapy. 🙂

@eek, look, until that kid is actually born, they’re just some blurry shape on an ultrasound. He isn't going to be able to tell one grainy image from another. It's not like he's already some tiny human being he’s been singing lullabies to, changing diapers for, or getting attached to.

They captured that perfectly in that scene where he heads back home only to be greeted by a child he doesn't even recognize.

But with this one, it doesn't work quite like that.

I definitely agree that keeping the time travel as just a backdrop for the human drama was the right call. If they had leaned too hard into the sci-fi mechanics, they probably would've tripped over their own feet trying to make the logic work.