If you’ve been on the Tube in the last few weeks you’ve undoubtedly noticed all those who missed the boat in 2003 hurriedly turning the pages of Audrey Niffenegger's best-selling novel, The Time Traveler’s Wife. Commuters after my own heart, they’ve probably learnt from experience that it’s best to get the full enjoyment out of a book before turning to the big screen adaptation that may well disappoint. So it feels good to be able to report that Robert Schwentke’s film justifies itself by being a tender, clever, humorous and heart-aching piece of romantic drama.

For those who still haven’t picked up the book or watched the trailer, the story centres on Henry (Eric Bana), a Chicago librarian who has a genetic disorder that makes him time travel involuntarily. He meets Clare (Rachel McAdams) at various times in her life, and the two must fight to maintain their intense relationship in the face of his condition.

The strength of the film comes down to the verity of the performances. This is real love - the stuff of Darcy and Elizabeth, Rhett and Scarlett, Kate and Leo – and there is not a moment when you don’t believe absolutely in Henry and Clare’s passion and desperate need to be together. Effective turns also come from Henry’s father (Arliss Howard), his best friend Gomez (Ron Livingston) and the young Clare (Brooklynn Proulx), but they are never more than bystanders to McAdams and Bana’s consuming on-screen chemistry.

Not without its flaws, there is the occasional moment of unrealistic sentimentality, such as when Henry travels back in time and meets his mother, who seems totally unperturbed by a male stranger acting oddly and overly friendly on the train. But considering the complexity of the raw material and the scope for an adaptation of this magnitude to go very, very wrong, Time Traveler’s deserves a hefty pat on the back, if only just for not royally screwing up a much-loved novel. It’s also easy - too easy - to pick apart and criticise any small discrepancies in the plot that come about because of the complications of time travel. The cause and effect conundrum could have you staring at a blank wall for days trying to make sense of it all… but why bother? Better just to take the flight of fancy and enjoy the film for what it is.

I’m not a big crier, in fact in all my movie-watching days there have only ever been two films that have brought on the waterworks, but The Time Traveler’s Wife had me welling up and trying to conceal my sniffles from a roomful of journos for a good 20 minutes as the film came to its close. So, if it can get the girl who has been affectionately(?) referred to as ‘dead inside’ on more than one occasion to shed a tear or two, it must be doing something right.

Georgine Waller