The best science fiction is about ideas. Even Star Wars has a story about the virtues of spirituality over technology. When sci-fi explores a great idea, that world can rattle around in one’s brain for days afterward. This is the case with In Time.
But a science fiction movie must still entertain. A bad movie, whatever the cause, distracts us from the story and pulls us out of the experience. Unfortunately, this is also the case with In Time.
Presumably, the story is set in the future, though it seems more like an alternate universe. Humanity has been genetically engineered to stop aging at the age of 25, and everyone is implanted with a timer in their forearm, set to begin counting down from one year on their 25th birthday. Time can be added or subtracted from the clock, but when it reaches zero, the person dies. The result is that time has become the worldwide currency, with everyone literally spending their minutes and hours on goods and services.
Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is poor, which means never having more than a few hours left at a time. One night in a bar, he meets a mysterious stranger named Hamilton with over a century on his clock, and saves the man from being attacked for it. In return, Hamilton educates Will on a secret economy that keeps the rich immortal at the expense of the poor, before giving Will all of his time and committing suicide.
When his mother dies due to unfortunate circumstances, Will sets out for the big city, intent on making the wealthy class pay for her death. He soon meets a powerful time banker named Weis (Vincent Kartheiser) and his daughter Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried), who is fascinated by Will and wants to know more about him. But Will is being pursued by a Timekeeper (read police detective, played by Cillian Murphy) for his link to Hamilton’s death, and meeting his fate is only (forgive me) a matter of time.
It’s a fascinating concept, and writer-director Andrew Niccol (known for other interesting stories like Gattaca and The Truman Show) provides enough detail to really make you think about what it must be to live in this world. When it’s pointed out that the poor do everything quickly, while the rich can afford to do things more slowly, the idea makes you question your own approach to life. And in this time of worldwide Occupy protests, the dynamics between these haves and have-nots resonates even more.
As a movie, however, In Time is flawed on many levels. First is the script, which uses the word “time” so much that all the dialogue runs together after a while. The action also stops continuously as characters fiddle with their timers, with an accompanying muddy ticking sound that will eventually give you a headache. And the production values are all over the map – at times the sets, props and visual effects look great, at others they are laughably bad. It’s as if the movie changed budget managers halfway through filming.
The performances are equally scattered. This is a world populated by people who look 25, but who are really much older, and most of these young actors aren’t able to convey the depth and wisdom of age in their characters. Kartheiser, perhaps as a side effect of his work on TV’s Mad Men, is able to get by, but he’s an exception. Timberlake is fine as a leading man, but he has zero chemistry with Seyfried, who spends most of her energy wobbling around in more pairs of unlikely heels than Rosie Huntington-Whitely wore in Transformers 3.
In Time might have been much better as a novel. Its ideas engage the mind, but the on screen execution ruins it.
Tags: movie review
About the author: David Raitt
David Raitt is a writer and lover of pop culture. He lives in Oakville. He has also worked as an actor for The Second City, and has written, produced and performed his own sketch comedy, including the Canadian Comedy Award-nominated ALL THE RAGE. Semi-retired from performing, he still teaches improv and communications skills to students and corporate groups through his association with The Second City. Check out Dave's website at http://davidraitt.com
Follow
Subscribe