Movie Review: ‘IN TIME’

In Time presents a clever premise. Your time on Earth is literally dictated by the amount of money you have. Yet, in this case, it is minutes on your arm as opposed to Benjamin Franklins in your wallet.  Once you turn twenty-five, the rest of your time on Earth is numbered based on the fluorescent green counter you have ticking away on your arm.  You can earn minutes through work or by stealing them from another’s arm, or you can lose them by making purchases such as a cup of coffee.  If you happen to be a part of the lower income society or simply weren’t born into high-end society . . . your life is going to end soon after.  Where other men might live for hundreds of years later.

This interesting set-up is the world in which Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) lives.  As someone who is literally living one day at a time, Will cherishes every minute he’s got.  Which is why when he witnesses a young wealthy man (he has over a decade on his arm) about to get robbed at a bar by the Minutemen, a gang of time thieves, he risks his life to save the stranger.   Little does Will know that this stranger is wanting to end his now over-extended existence.  Therefore, when Will wakes up the next morning with his new friend, he finds the decade has switched to his own arm and his friend now at the end of his life.  Will’s new state of funds gives the modern day “Robin Hood” a chance to correct the corrupt system and get revenge for the death of his mother and the members of the lower end of society.  Along his journey to restore balance, Will gets involved with a rich time bank owner (Vincent Kartheiser of Mad Men fame) and his rebellious daughter Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried).

If you find yourself slightly confused after reading the above summary, it is because I could have wrote about three more paragraphs outlining the ambitious story and its overworked plot.  Director Andrew Niccol, who knows how to craft a smart science fiction film, previously gave us a modern sci-fi classic with Gattaca.  In Time isn’t as successful as the director’s earlier film. In fact, it is one of the most disappointing films I’ve seen from a talented director in awhile.  The story infuses a heavy dose of preachy politics about the class structure and “not wasting time” to ever have any real fun.  Because of repetitive “meaningful” monologues and one too many plot devices, the film feels like a heavy plodding mess that makes you want to check your own watch half-way through.  Niccol throws in a couple of action sequences including a car chase and a roof-top chase to help kick-start the sagging middle half.  Unfortunately the sequences are unimaginative and fail to have the energy that Niccol clearly put into setting up this complex world.

The young, good-looking, and fashionable cast are hardly to blame for the misdirection of the film.  In fact, everyone, including Justin Timberlake, does their best with what they are given.  Who makes the most of the material is genre vet Cillian Murphy.  Even in a stereotypical long black leather jacket, Murphy is able to defy expectations as the “evil” head timekeeper on the hunt for Will.  In the end, In Time is a victim of its own cleverness.  Instead of creating an engaging thriller, the film almost seems to be taking a seat back and listening to its own brainy logic and astute observations on our greedy lifestyle.  If only In Time didn’t try so hard to impress fans looking for the next Blade Runner, maybe it could have been a fun time-waster instead of a complete waste of time.