In Time

Writer-director Andrew Niccol likes to give us worlds that resemble our own, but differ in intriguing ways. In his breakout film, Gattaca, he gave us a world where human reproduction had been replaced with genetic splicing. In The Truman Show, he gave us a world that was completely under the control of an ego-maniacal TV producer, who was filming the life of a simple man 24-7. His latest film, In Time, explores a world where time itself is the most valuable asset, and can be bought, traded, stolen, used as currency, and even fought over. It's a fascinating idea, but instead of fully exploring this idea or the world itself, it opts for a more conventional action thriller approach that is certainly watchable, but somewhat disappointing given the possibilities on display.

The imaginative world and the idea behind it serve merely as a launching point for a Bonnie and Clyde-style story of fugitive lovers on the run, with plenty of chases, shootouts, and high speed cars fleeing from danger. All of this is done with a certain amount of skill, and Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried (as the fugitive lovers) are fun to watch. I just wanted the movie to slow down long enough for me to enjoy the world Niccol has created for his characters. I'm uncertain if the film is supposed to take place sometime in the distant future, or perhaps on an alternate version of Earth. We learn early on that people age normally on this world until they reach the age of 25. At that point, they simply stop aging, and a green digital clock that's permanently on their arm begins to tick down their remaining time. Everyone starts with one year worth of time left to live on their clock. But in this world, time can be bought, sold, gambled, and traded by simply clasping hands with someone else. Everything costs time in this world, and some have more than others. The wealthy elite are allowed to live for centuries, as they add more and more time to their clocks. Meanwhile, the lower class citizens who live in the slums must literally live day-by-day, and minute by minute.

We meet our hero, Will Salas (Timberlake) - a working class man who punches his clock at the factory every day, and has a mother (Olivia Wilde), who looks the same age as him, but is actually 50. Both live a modest life, adding whatever minutes they can to their remaining time. One day, Will saves the life of a wealthy man with over a century left to live from some thugs who wanted to steal his remaining time. After they've escaped and they are alone, the man is grateful to Will, but also admits that he has lived longer than he would like, and wishes he did not have to wait so long to have to die. He gives most of his remaining time to Will, and dies shortly afterward, letting his remaining seconds run out. With time literally now on his side, Will decides to see how the other half spend their prolonged existence. At a high scale gambling casino, he encounters one of the world's richest men, Philippe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser), as well as his lovely daughter, Sylvia (Seyfried).

There is an instant connection between Will and Sylvia, but it is cut short when a police detective known as a Timekeeper (Cillian Murphy) begins pursuing Will for information on the dead man he was seen with. (A security camera filmed Will being nearby the man who gave him his time right before he died.) Will flees, taking Sylvia hostage. As the two try to stay ahead of the pursuing lawmen, Sylvia gets a first hand look at how the poor scrape by to survive with their few minutes each day, whereas the rich live forever. They soon become a pair of noble outlaws, stealing precious time from banks, and delivering it to the needy. There are some fascinating ideas of class warfare at the center of In Time, with the wealthy passing down such few time limits to the working poor each day. It may be obvious, but it's effective, and it would be even more so if Niccol was allowed to truly explore his world.

This seems to be where the movie is going during the first half. We don't fully understand the world or its rules, but we are intrigued, and we want to learn more. We get some tasty tidbits of info, but for the most part, the movie eventually downgrades itself into endless action and conventional stunts. The movie remains watchable throughout, we're just left wondering what the movie could have been if it had stayed as intelligent as the first hour or so was. At least the movie doesn't sell itself completely short. I kept on dreading the movie would go into full-on brainless mode, which it never does. And Timberlake and Seyfried make an attractive couple, even if these aren't the most interesting characters they've played.

I guess I could be considered of two minds regarding In Time. I was entertained, but not enough that I didn't sigh a little when the movie took a turn from the intelligent to the contrived. I also didn't care about the characters enough to fully get involved with the movie. And yet, I'm glad I saw it. There are certainly some inventive ideas on display, and when you see as many movies as I do, any film that attempts to do something a little different is always welcome. The idea is there. The potential is there. I don't know, maybe the screenplay needed another draft or two to flesh things out. Or maybe it was studio interference, demanding more action set pieces. Whatever the case, I would love to hear Niccol talk about the world he created, and hear some of the ideas he wasn't able to use in his script.

Please don't read this review as a straight-out pan. Read it simply as this is a very interesting movie that could have been so much more.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

0 comments