I’m Back and Just In Time

Sorry for the terrible title, but I couldn’t just come back with the normal headline—even though now I am regretting it. Why have I been gone? Simple. I love sports more than I love movies and the little tournament going on in London has left me with little time to watch movies. Unfortunately, I chose In Time as the film with which to start my comeback. Shame.  


In this future, we stop aging after we turn 25 and are given one more year to live, unless we can acquire more time. Time has become the currency by which every decision is made. For those at the bottom of the economic food chain (coincidentally in section 12 like a certain other dystopian story), people live from day to day with minimal amounts of time, while others in the upper echelon have centuries upon centuries. After a “rich” man gifts Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) with 119 years, he decides to move up in society and begin taking the time back for the general public. Oh and he’s accused of the rich guy’s murder.

In Time has promise. The premise is solid, the visual effects are there, but nothing turns out the way it should. The initial gripe I had that realistically ruined the rest of the film is the casting of Timberlake. I have nothing against him, but this wasn’t the role for him. Personally I thought someone like a Ben Foster should have been given the chance to get the spotlight in a film people would see. Next, Alex Pettyfer was cast as a random petty gangster who steals from the poor. He is actually English and his accent still sounded forced! How he did that is beyond me. Luckily, his role was minimal. Meanwhile, Amanda Seyfried seemed too young to play her role as a 25-year-old despite her being 26 in real life—again, beyond me.

So as you have figured out, the movie didn’t start off on the right foot to begin with, but the flimsy story ruined it for me. Will goes from noble poor guy, to obnoxious rich man, to kidnapper (kind of) to frivolous thief. The choices he makes do not mirror the ideals and morals he stood for in the beginning of the film. They have one thread in common: giving back to the people, but when he is rich, he lives like one of the people he hated. Admittedly, that’s what anyone would do, but Cillian Murphy chasing Will for the aforementioned murder is the only thing that pushes him back into the “I must find justice for the poor” model.

After a while In Time devolves into a mock Robin Hood/Bonnie and Clyde with a serious case of blue balls. That wasn’t a metaphor. Eventually, the only thing that becomes interesting is whether or not Timberlake and Seyfried will have sex. Spoiler: people barge in at the last second every damn time—poor fella.

Anyway, the more the story tries to become complex, the less complex it actually is and the more you question the motives of the people involved. Almost everyone, except Sylvia’s (Seyfried) father, has a motive for taking time, but no one really does for practicably inexplicable reasons. In Time is, simply put, a dud.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Let me know what you think

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: