web
counter
 

In Time Review: The Right Idea for the Time, the Wrong Movie for the Ages

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (34)



Justin-Timberlake-.jpg

I love everything about In Time, except for the unacceptably awful movie itself. It comes from New Zealand’s Andrew Niccol who has displayed glimpses of profound talent, during his career, writing the screenplay for The Truman Show, as well as writing and directing Lord of War (a better movie than its reception suggested) and Gattaca, a thoughtful, intellectually stimulating, suspenseful and impressive sci-fi film that took years to find an audience. Niccol has had a knack coming up with prescient ideas: The Truman Show presaged out reality-show culture; Gattaca took place in a universe where genetic engineering was possible; and the appropriately maligned S1m0ne was built on the premise that a digitally created actress could act as a substitute for a real one, which is now, of course, a reality.

It’s hard to imagine that even Niccol could’ve predicted how timely In Time would be when he developed the idea of a universe where Time is currency. It’s not the conceit itself that’s so perfectly aligned with this moment in our nation’s political culture: It’s the allegory. In Time is a movie set in a universe where one percent owns 99 percent of the world’s Time while the other 99 percent live literally day-to-day, hour-to-hour, second-to-second. Citizens — who stop aging at 25, which is when their clocks begin running — are paid in Time, which is reflected in glowing numbers on their forearm. If they time-out, they die. Immediately. They pay their mortgage with Time, they purchase food with Time, and they gamble with Time. The 99 percent typically have less than a day’s worth of Time on them at any given moment, and the streets of the working-class ghetto are scattered with the dead, those who didn’t arrive to work in time to add wages on to their forearm or who ran out after paying a debt. The system, in fact, is designed for this very outcome: The world’s limited resources cannot sustain the life of the many, so most of the Time is concentrated among the super-wealthy who are for all intents and purposes immortal.

All of this is explained in the opening scenes in a very clumsily written exposition dump delivered by the super-rich Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer), who has a century left on his arm and is tired of living. He sets the narrative into motion by gifting his remaining time to Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), who had just lost his mother (Olivia Wilde) when an unannounced bus fare hike left her without enough time to make it home. As one is wont to do after one loses a family member to an unjust system, Will uses his time to navigate his way into the wealthy section of the city, which is where he kidnaps Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried), the daughter of an obscenely wealthy business man (“Mad Men’s” Vincent Kartheiser). Will and Sylvia ultimately join forces, which is when In Time morphs into a Bonnie and Clyde/Robin Hood hybrid: They steal from the rich and redistribute Time to the poor. Meanwhile, they are fleeing from the Time Keepers, led by Cillian Murphy’s Raymond, who need to restore order to the system before it collapses. There’s also a roving gang of thugs and an additional obstacle for Will and Sylvia: The Minute Men (led by an Alex Pettyfer character) go around stealing time from the poor.

On paper, In Time sounds like a brilliant movie containing all the elements of a brilliant Phillip K. Dick sci-fi film and an allegorical idea that loudly resonates in a nation where the Occupy Wall Street Movement is finding life. Unfortunately, it is dreadfully executed. It’s difficult to fathom how such a promising idea — and even a well-defined plot structure — could sour so quickly. There’s not enough lipstick in the world to put on this pig; it’s a terrible, truly awful film and I write that as someone who really wanted to give In Time every benefit of the doubt. It’s as though Niccol came up with the concept and then quit on the project: The writing is tone deaf, klutzy, and lazier than one of Adam Sandler’s monkey-penned screenplays. Niccol’s earlier work benefited from the lack of dialogue and a cold, clinical nature. He exercise no such restraint in In Time: It’s one hackneyed exposition dump after another, and there are moments when I actually felt bad for the actors forced to deliver the lines written.

Yet the acting, oof, is also abysmal. I like and admire Justin Timberlake, but JT is a personality. A personality can do well on “Saturday Night Live” or in a romantic comedy, as he did earlier this year in Friends with Benefits. But he is a dreadful actor: wooden, inconsistent, and smirky in a role that doesn’t call for smirky. The best thing I can say for Amanda Seyfried’s performance is that she looks really good in a pair of high heels. She and JT have about as much chemistry as pine tar and KY Jelly. Vincent Kartheiser is borderline campy, while Cillian Murphy doesn’t even bring his brand of creepy to the role. It’s a badly miscast film from top to bottom, and none of the roles are suited to the strengths of the actors themselves.

It’s a shame, too, that Niccol wasted a perfectly good idea on this garbage film when a few rewrites, another director, and a different set of actors could’ve delivered a superb sci-fi film. A better executed version of this movie might’ve capitalized on OWS. It could’ve been a cinematic symbol, bolstering the 99 to 1 message. But this version is not a movie any right-minded individual would want to associate with a political movement. It’s like taking Barack Obama’s hopeful “Yes We Can!” message in 2008 and putting it into the mouth of Rick Perry: It’d be awkward, laughable, and dumb, which is an all too unfortunately appropriate description of In Time.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



"I'm Fine, B*tch. I'm Fine," and the Rest of the Best Moments from NBC's Thursday Night Comedies | "Grimm" Review: You Sure Aren't Looking Good









Comments

Dammit! I was really hoping that this would be good. It had such an awesome concept.
Just for your information, pine tar and KY can be extremely invigorating. You just have to know the proper ratio.

Posted by: admin at October 28, 2011 12:11 PM

Eh, I had low hopes for this, but I really liked the idea. Also, can we stop trying to make JT an actor? Please?

Posted by: Candee at October 28, 2011 12:14 PM

I never thought for one second that Timberlake was right for this part. The guy is an entertainer, not an actor.

Posted by: Pookie at October 28, 2011 12:19 PM

I was actually hoping for this one to be better than it seemed. The off-moments in the trailers kind of gave up the ghost on the writing, but I was hoping the bad bits were few and far between.

Posted by: halfpastoctober at October 28, 2011 12:26 PM

I'm sorry, but the premise of this is just freaking stupid. I get the allegorical part, you'd have to be a 4 year old not too. But I'm not surprised the movie is a mess, because from the previews it looked like they never got any further than "What if time really WAS money?" I like science fiction, but come on. Do they even attempt to explain how this concept works?

Posted by: TylerDFC at October 28, 2011 12:41 PM

since Hollywood reborquels everything every few years or so, perhaps some director in the near future will redo the movie?? It sounds like such an awesome concept.

Posted by: Stella at October 28, 2011 12:56 PM

Typical waste of a potentially interesting premise. Oh well. I'll watch it on mute when it inevitably repeats on FX and I'm in the mood to look at pretty people.

Posted by: Gine at October 28, 2011 1:12 PM

I'd wondered if there'd be any reference to Repent, Harlequin, Said the TickTockMan by Harlan Ellison.

Dustin, your enthusiasm for OWS seems to overwhelm your review of this film. If you weren't so busy attempting to fit In Time to the OWS narrative, would it still be a terrible film?

I ask because outside of a disagreement in how Timberlake played his character, you really don't give a reason why you didn't like the film.

Posted by: ironchefoklahoma at October 28, 2011 1:28 PM

I root for the failure of every Justin Timberlake project, despite him being a plus in Alpha Dog and consistently excellent on SNL. That might make me garbage, but I'd hate to see him gain traction as a viable leading man for action/thrillers. I only wish I could enjoy this eulogy more, but learning that the driving concept behind the film was actually interesting leaves me feeling empty. Still, well written review.

Posted by: Jettison at October 28, 2011 1:30 PM

Initially I thought this would be bad. Then I saw the trailer and knew it would be really fucking bad. And then, even after reading the tagline for the review, Dustins description of the Time as Money device gave me some hope. At least enough hope to half in baggingly catch it on Netflix next year.

Sigh.

@TylerDFC, I imagine the "run out of Time and die" mechanism would be a custom engineered genetic trigger. How they explain how JT becomes a Special Forces kidnapping and killing machine would be interesting to know.

Posted by: Groundloop at October 28, 2011 1:32 PM

Matt Bomer?! Justin Timberlake?! (oh, you shut it) Olivia Wilde?! Cillian Murphy?! Well, someone has been spying on my dreams. I’d go see this just to drool over the cast.

Posted by: Scully at October 28, 2011 1:33 PM

TylerDFC and I were on the exact same page. The trailer for this beats its allegory into the viewers' heads with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

I'll watch it someday on cable perhaps, but a good science-fiction feature needs more than a concept. Now, a good science-fiction short story (or an episode of The Twilight Zone), that can get by on a concept...

Posted by: DarthCorleone at October 28, 2011 2:15 PM

I've been so ambivalent about how I wanted this movie to turn out. I really like Gattaca, but since the reviews have been pretty shitty, I may have to pass. I do love Cillian Murphy, and Bitchface Campbell, but I really hate Timberlake. Seyfried, I used to like, but she seems closer to the ditz that she played in Mean Girls than I thought she was. I've kind of fallen out of love with her.

Posted by: sars at October 28, 2011 2:37 PM

This movie could have been the Inception of 2011 in terms of quality and box office. The idea behind the story has got me absolutely drooling. I'd love to read the original novel that inspired it (if it, y'know, existed). Such a shame.

Posted by: idiosynchronic at October 28, 2011 2:47 PM

Pine tar & KY jelly, why do you have to remind us of your first Little League days Dustin?

Posted by: Ted at October 28, 2011 2:59 PM

They lost me at Justin Timberlake.

Posted by: Junierizzle at October 28, 2011 3:11 PM

Man, I never get tired of being right. Though really who on earth thinks this is a good idea? Time is money?

I mean if Iron Sky started using Nazi's on the moon as a way to preach a message about something people shouldn't use movies to find out about, it'd have little to no chance to be good...

Add to that a cast that is known for dry performances, it'd have no chance to be good.

Posted by: googergieger at October 28, 2011 3:17 PM

Wow, so much hate for JT in this thread! I thought he was fantastic in The Social Network, even pretty decent in Black Snake Moan. I think he hasn't been in the acting game as long as many of the people he's acting against. Frankly, your description of Timberlake's acting style applies double to Kartheiser; he's always been an awkward, stiff, comically flat actor. He's perfect for his part on Mad Men because his character's supposed to be an annoying slime, which is the only kind of acting he can pull off.

Posted by: ChristianH at October 28, 2011 3:26 PM

I don't hate Timberlake, but the commercials make this look like the stupidest movie ever. The "concept" makes no damn sense at all.

Posted by: Slash at October 28, 2011 4:10 PM

I'ma see it, and I'll probably love it.

Posted by: DeistBrawler at October 28, 2011 4:46 PM

This movie looked like it could have some promise. But the trailers were bad, in no small part because of Timberlake.

I'm totally with Jettison. I wish Hollywood would stop pushing him. There is no reason he should be taking decent roles away from decent actors. Give the roles to someone who has earned it.

Posted by: Dave at October 28, 2011 5:24 PM

This thing sounded stupid right from the get go but really - In Time? The Time Keepers? The Minute Men?! Who thought it would be a good idea to build a movie around a series of bad puns?

Posted by: Ballymena Bob at October 28, 2011 6:18 PM

Stupid puns are nothing new to movies.

Star Trek - 'red matter' - really? that's the best name they could come up with?
I'm sure there's a metric ton of others but as soon as I need to recall something pithy, I forget it.

Posted by: Stella at October 28, 2011 8:14 PM

Damn. I wanted this to be good as well. Oh well, might wait till it comes out on DVD then.

Posted by: Mr X at October 28, 2011 11:28 PM

Seriously, someone must be paying this reviewer to be this much of an idiot, it doesn't seem naturally possible otherwise. Not only did he miss the brilliance of some of the choices made in executing this film, but he got the plot sequence completely out of order in his summary. I wrote more coherent reviews in my fifth grade newspaper.

I saw the film last night, and I was profoundly impressed. As a lifetime hard-core science fiction junkie, that is difficult to achieve. This movie was NOT "garbage". I think it did an amazing job of illustrating allegorically what for so many of us is a solid, day-to-day reality. I experienced an emotional catharsis and felt very connected to the characters. Please don't be deterred by the anti-hype, it was worth my precious time, and then some.

For one thing, consider how brilliant it was to make everyone young and gorgeous. When the young and gorgeous suffer, people seem to care in a different way than when it's "those people". Their youth and beauty acted as a blank slate in which their fundamental humanity, something that belongs to all of us, rich and poor, black and white and hispanic, model-esque or ugly, was reflected back to us. That's just the tip of the iceberg. But this reviewer took an entire page just to trash what I think will prove to be a very important film in the long run, and one that can be mined for insightful truths if given a fair go. Sincerely, someone poor as S%it.

Posted by: NinjaHoeVinoTour at October 29, 2011 2:54 AM

^Justin Timberlake

Posted by: googergieger at October 29, 2011 3:33 AM

I think the concept would make a great book. It's not too late!


Posted by: PP Matter at October 29, 2011 5:19 AM

Why is Justin Timberlake... why is so many. Please stop trying to make these people happen. But then again, it probably is more about gratifying egos and collect the lunch money of the overly impressionable.

Posted by: polly at October 29, 2011 1:33 PM

My god this sucked balls. My friends were laughing at the coney as hell lines and really bad bad bad bad bad acting and as much I felt like they should respect whoever might be enjoying it, I could not help but understand.

And when JT killes those thieves...without any remorse? I mean when and how did they got set up to be Natural Born Killers and bank robbers? All the lines were so so so badly executed and the way the time get drained was so fucking convenient and the attempt to create tension was insultingly transparent. I mean, tis so goddamn easy to kill people. literally, just twist their writ and boom dead. so so so so so so so so stupidly executed.

Men, I was glad I was gonna miss it when I read this review, then my friend got ticket for this one instead of Tree of Life, which would have been 100 times better even on 2nd viewing.

I was trying so hard to feel whatever it was supposed to make me want to but, dammit, I had to laugh with my friends. It's all too easy and not any moment I believed the protagonist would die and if they did it would have made a worse stupidity of a movie This was a lose lose movie in every way...except for Amanda Seyfried's ass shot.

But seriously, "You were killing her. You are killing me too. You suffocate us." This movie is like bad writing 101; what not to do ever ever ever...seriously EVER!"

Posted by: yocean at October 30, 2011 12:12 PM

I liked it.

Posted by: elaine at October 30, 2011 7:22 PM

"He sets the narrative into motion by gifting his remaining time to Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), who had just lost his mother (Olivia Wilde)"

Is Olivia Wilde not three years younger than Justin Timberlake???

Posted by: Ender at October 31, 2011 5:43 AM

I'll just pull out my Logan's Run DVD and marvel at Jenny Agutter.

Posted by: grumpyoldman at October 31, 2011 9:25 AM


i don't think i would make a display of my liberal credentials
with a reference to " yes we can "....... all pajibians know that
you come down on the right side of all social and political issues
but it would appear that pres. obama's 2012 campaign slogan
will be closer to " no we couldn't ". don't worry though, he will
blame it on bush and the republicans. if his opponent is that boob
perry, he will likely get away with it.

Posted by: snake at November 1, 2011 9:39 PM

JT = "Smirky". At last! We're uncovering more of his character beyond the marketing megalith's gloss. Coming soon are "Snivelling", "Creepy", and just "Weak". I mean how can you take a supposed leading man seriously in a film when his voice is higher-pitched than his lady's?

Posted by: Walter Ray Choi at November 3, 2011 3:28 AM