REVIEW: 'In Time'
REVIEW: 'In Time'
Always a sucker for big budget sci-fi thrillers, I’ve been anxiously awaiting the release of “In Time” on DVD. The Justin Timberlake vehicle features a unique concept where time is a commodity and apparently very scarce. The film took a beating from critics but was somewhat successful at the box office, earning $142 million worldwide. Were the critics correct in their assessment of the film (they sometimes take themselves a bit too serious), or do the ticket sales speak for themselves?
In the year 2161, humans are genetically programmed to stop aging at the age of 25, where they are given one year to live. Time becomes a physical thing that can be transferred from person to person, and the clock starts ticking at 25. Society is divided among the haves and have nots – who has the time and who doesn’t. The rich live in time zones and enjoy extravagant lives with decades of time available, while the poor live day to day in ghettos, scraping to get enough time to survive another twenty four hours. When Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is accused of stealing a century worth of time from another man, the investigation threatens to bring down the entire class system where money, not time, is the currency.
It seem as if writer and director Andrew Niccol came up with a great concept for a film and then rushed it through production, rather than take time to hone the script, set design, casting and overall direction of the film. It feels like they basically cast Justin Timberlake in the lead, came up with a few snarky one-liners, and shot the film. “In Time” ends up being an interesting idea gone wrong due in part to terrible dialogue, bad acting, and a weak storyline. There’s so much to critique so I’ll break it down by category:
The Plot: The film’s exposition explains how we got to the point where humans are born with a built-in timer on their foream and stop aging at age 25 with an omniscient narrator telling us there isn’t enough time to explain – therefore we never know how we actually got to this point. Even a short explanation might add exponentially to understanding and appreciating the film’s concept.
The Setting: Apparently in 150 years, everything is going to look like the 1920s. The set design of the ghetto of Dayton often times looks like depression era New York. For some reason, the only crime is committed by one rouge group of thugs who drive around like prohibition era gangsters, stealing time from those who flaunt it. For a city filled with millions of poor desperate people, things are quite civilized.
The Weak Story: Writer/Director/Producer Andrew Niccol had so much to work with here, but ignored it all in favor of Timberlake and Sydfried’s action sequences and make-out sessions. I watched the film with my wife, who turned to me after someone in the film gave up time for a cup of coffee and said “I wouldn’t be wasting my time on coffee!” It parallels what we currently do every day but in a different light – indulging in smoking, caffeine, bad food – all things we know will likely take time off our lives, but choose to do anyway. It’s no different in the film, but the moral conundrums are never examined in-depth. It appears as if the scene is there only to reiterate that time is the new currency, not money.
The Acting: Perhaps this could be the fault of the script, which does everyone involved no favors with flat characters and zero backstories (though often teased). Saying that Amanda Seyfried’s acting is wooden is an insult to anyone who every played “The tree” in a grade school production. Timberlake does his best to make Will Salas sympathetic, but with no quality backstory or supporting characters, you just don’t connect with him. Likewise for the Timekeeper character (Cillian Murphy, “Batman Begins”). You keep waiting for his story to play a major role in the film’s climax, only to get a thin, meaningless explanation. Don’t get me started on Will’s ability to win “fights” for time that consist of who has their forearm facing up whilst engaged in a handshake-like grip. His secret weapon of waiting for his opponent to look at his remaining seconds only to catch him off guard is reminiscent of Sylvester Stallone’s cheesy thumb-switch thingy in the arm wrestling flick “Over the Top.” The only thing missing was JT flipping his cap around backwards.
There are a few redeeming qualities of the film, if you look hard enough. Phrases such as “cost of living” and “Time Share” take on a whole new meaning in the context of time as currency, and they are playfully littered throughout the film. The play on time zones is interesting as well. If you think about it, we conceivably lose time when moving east through time zones – and in the film they have to pay to move from zone to zone. It’s another contextual dual meaning that is fun to wrap your head around.
The failure of “In Time” may have been Andrew Niccol biting off more than he could chew. Credited as writer, director and producer, the film would certainly have benefited from additional hands in the proverbial cookie jar during pre-production. I would love to see how different this film would look if someone such as Alex Proyas (“I, Robot”) took the helm as director. Though he hit a home run 15 years ago when he wrote and directed “Gattaca” Niccol doesn’t come anywhere close to recapturing that same magic with “In Time.”
Travis Yates
