I so badly want to make a pun about how In Time is such a waste of time. I guess I already did. But it really does get the point across right away. In Time may have a cool and talented cast and good director behind it, but they don’t stop it from failing miserably.
After seeing its presentation at San Diego Comic-Con this past summer, I was instantly intrigued by In Time. I thought the concept of time as currency was interesting and different. I also was impressed by the cast. Justin Timberlake had started to get on my radar as an actor after The Social Network and Friends with Benefits. I was looking forward to seeing him try out being an action star. In addition, I’m a fan of Cillian Murphy, Amanda Seyfried, Alex Pettyfer and the rest of cast. Writer/director Andrew Niccol had proven himself with previous films, like Lord of War, GATTACA, etc. Was it wrong of me to expect an entertaining, smart and thrilling story? Apparently so.
In Time has a great concept, but it’s executed so poorly. Justin Timberlake plays the Robin Hood of time. When a “rich” man with a century on his clock decides that he’s lived long enough, he gives the rest of his time to Justin Timberlake’s character, Will. In Will’s neighborhood, it’s very dangerous to be walking around with that much time, since most there live only on hours. Also, it doesn’t help that there is this Mafioso (Alex Pettyfer) who is bent on getting Will’s time. Oh, and did I mention that everyone stops aging at 25, and after that they only have one year to live after that, unless they earn more time. Everyone in this movie is good looking. I mean, Olivia Wilde plays Justin Timberlake’s mother!
Will realizes that the way time is distributed to each district is unfair, so he decides to go to the richest district, get as much time as he can, and give it to the poor. That is illegal; hence, the timekeepers (aka police) are after him. Of course, Will takes the richest guy’s daughter (Amanda Seyfried) hostage, and they are on the run.
There are several things that make In Time disappointing. But what really kills it is the writing. The story took a complex premise and oversimplified it and gave it an unoriginal story. The movie was fairly predictable. On top of that, the dialogue was terrible. It was full of time puns, and some lines were just delivered terribly. There was no chemistry between any of the characters, especially between Timberlake and Seyfried. The acting was mediocre. Timberlake had proved he could act, but I’m afraid this movie set him back a bit. Half of the time, he was acting too dramatically and the rest it seemed like he didn’t even care. I won’t get started on Seyfried. I was mostly disappointed by Cillian Murphy, since I think he’s one of the best actors around.
In Time means well, and it does have a couple of fleeting thrilling moments. But otherwise, it’s 109 minutes of pretty people running around and making puns about time. It lacked the depth that I expected from a film like this. I can’t even write this off as a fun, mindless action film. The action was rather subpar and relied too much on uninteresting plot. If you’re still so inclined to see the film (Yes, I love Justin Timberlake too!), wait to rent it. Trust me; it’s not worth the theater admission.
In Time is now playing in theaters.
Advertisement
Advertisement