Review: In Time

Plot: In 2161 the currency is time not money. Genetic manipulation allows humans to stop aging at 25--but there is a price. After 25 humans have exactly one year left and the only way to accumulate more time is work. While the rich can live virtually forever, the downtrodden try to eek out an existence so they don't "time out." When poor factory worker Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) saves a rich businessman and wakes up the next day with over 100 years on his clock, Will discovers that finally having enough time can still get you killed.

Review: 20th Century Fox's latest science fiction foray In Time is kind of like Occupy Wall Street--interesting concept but poor execution.

I'll admit that director Andrew Nicoll conveys poignantly the disparity between the lower and upper classes in the 22nd century. Everything from coffee to rent is measured out in minutes, with the rich setting loan rates and increasing the cost of living to keep the rich in power, and the poor living day to day. However, the rich are also trapped by their circumstances. Despite having enormous amounts of time, many live sheltered and safe lives, fearing to be killed accidentally.

Often times the best science fiction facilitates excellent social commentary, whether it is the threat of nuclear destruction in The Day the Earth Stood Still or the threat to the environment in Avatar. Like Avatar, In Time's social commentary is about as subtle as a Chuck Norris round house kick to the face, however it didn't severely detract from the film.

What did detract from In Time were some of the odd futuristic features of the film. For example, time is transferred simply by touching another person's arm. This seems ludicrous because wouldn't that make it incredibly easy to steal time? Furthermore, apparently technology has not improved in the mid 22nd century. Cell phones, cars, computers--everything looks exactly the same as it does in 2011. You would think producers Marc Abraham, Amy Israel, Kristel Laiblin, and Eric Newman would make a stronger effort at creating the world of tomorrow. Then there are these ridiculous "Time Fights" that people seem to engage in, sort of like an arm wrestling match. One such fight between Timberlake and gangster Fortis (Alex Pettyfer) late in the film comes across as comical rather than tense.

Additionally, In Time suffers from poor pacing and plot. The first half of the film involves Will running for his life from Timekeepers who believe he stole the time left to him. Once he escapes into a different more affluent time zone, he lives the high life for awhile eventually meeting a wealthy heiress named Sylvia Weis. After kidnapping her to avoid the Timekeepers, one would expect a suspenseful race against time movie. Wrong. Instead the film degenerates into a Bonnie and Clyde-esque bonanza where Will and Sylvia start stealing time and giving it away. Consequently, Niccol never decides exactly what type of film In Time should be. The result is a half baked mess that not even the excellent editing of Zach Staenberg could save.

Acting performances in In Time are hit and miss. Timberlake is strong in his first leading role and brings a sense of desperation and quiet nobility to Will. What impressed me the most was one of the first scenes with Olivia Wilde, who plays Rachel Salas, Will's mother. Despite the fact that in real life the two actors are only a few years apart, Timberlake made the scene believable. After turns in The Social Network and now In Time, I hope Timberlake gets the credit he richly deserves as a good actor. If the public insists on calling Robert Pattinson, Ryan Reynolds, and Rob Schneider "actors" then they need to stop referring to Timberlake as the "Dick In the Box"/Insynch/SNL host guy who dated Cameron Diaz. He's a real actor Hollywood. Deal with it.

Cillian Murphy is also strong as Timekeeper Raymond Leon. (Timekeepers are kind of the cops of the future.) He represents someone who upholds law and order but sympathizes with Sylvia and Will's plight. Pettyfer is also great as a gangster but was severely underused. Sadly Amanda Seyfried was abominable in this film. She fails miserably to evoke any real emotion and her character Sylvia was blander than a two week old rice cake. About the only thing Seyfried did well was look hot.

What's sad about In Time is that it had the potential to be a very good movie. It's a shame that the makers of In Time didn't invest more time (eh-emm) in making this a better movie.

My rating: 5/10