In Time Review

Posted by Chad Webb on 11.10.2011

Time isn't everything...

Justin Timberlake: Will Salas
Amanda Seyfried: Sylvia Weis
Cillian Murphy: Raymond Leon
Vincent Kartheiser: Phillipe Weis
Alex Pettyfer: Fortis
Johnny Galecki: Borel
Olivia Wilde: Rachel
Matt Bomer: Henry Hamilton
Written and Directed By: Andrew Niccol
Release Date: October 28, 2011
Running Time: 109 minutes







Rated PG-13 for violence, some sexuality and partial nudity, and strong language

You probably thought the same thing I did when you first watched the trailer for In Time. Here we have a futuristic world where people are genetically engineered to stop aging at 25. They are given enough time to live one more year, but can then acquire more to live longer. Basically time is used as currency. "That's inventive," we all said. Unfortunately the creativity stops there. Other than that, we have an allegory of our planet's improbable future under the guise of a chase story. I saw the trailer many times, and in the back of my head, something was nagging at me about the acting, how unforgivably serious it was. I should have listened. In Time is one of the silliest, most disappointing movies of the year.

Our tale begins with narration by Justin Timberlake's character Will Salas in the year 2161, who sounds solemn and flat enough that it spells doom for the viewer. Cut then to a shot of Timberlake getting out of bed, shirtless. Like Matthew McConaughey, perhaps he discovered the shirtless scene clause can be obtained. It takes a few minutes to soak in the set-up. Will works at a random factory job to obtain more time so he can, you know...live and stuff. Everything costs time, whether it be food or a bus ticket. Olivia Wilde portrays Will's 50 year-old mother, and it's a little bit creepy. Will and his mother Rachel reside in the ghetto Dayton (one of many "Time Zones"), and live day to day not knowing it they will survive. At the bar one night, Will and his friend Borel (Johnny Galecki) notice a handsome man decked out in an expensive suit, buying all sorts of drinks. His name is Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer) and he is not from that area, where someone with extra time sticks out like a sore thumb.

Will eventually helps him escape the clutches of some evil gangsters, even though it makes no sense for him do so, not AT ALL. Henry is 105 years-old, and decides he does not want to be immortal any longer. He transfers his time to Will and commits suicide. Shortly thereafter, Will is anxiously awaiting his mother to tell her of their new wealth. After Rachel pays off a loan, she realizes she does not have time enough for a bus ticket home. The driver says she has to run. Of course she arrives home just as Will is and dies falling into his arms. His grief leads him on a path of revenge. Henry explained the inequity of the time system; that prices increase all the time so people keep dying, controlling the population and keeping the rich, rich. Will hops in a car and heads for ritzy New Greenwich. Soon he is being pursued by the authorities in light of Henry's death. He winds up taking Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried) hostage, the daughter of a 90 year-old billionaire (Vincent Kartheiser). Together, they try to induce a system collapse.

The characters who inhabit this universe talk about the policies. procedures, and slogans as if they were created yesterday. I left some of the names out of my summary. The gangsters are called "Minutemen," and they are led by Alex Pettyfer's Fortis, another Hollywood pretty boy whose pompousness off screen translates opposite his favor to his roles on screen, including this one. Minutemen. Geez. When anyone dies, it's referred to as "Timing Out." Cillian Murphy thinks he's David Caruso in a film noir as the lead cop tracking Will Salas. Oh I'm sorry, the cops are called Timekeepers. Murphy is Raymond Leon, a 50 year veteran on the force. Before Will kidnaps Sylvia Weis, he acts like James Bond in a poker game against her father Phillipe, played by Mad Men's Vincent Kartheiser. He looks at all the time Will possesses and says "You must come from time." Get it, because people used to say "You must come from money." Har har. You can tell director Andrew Niccol was extremely excited when he wrote lines like this.

Justin Timberlake is a versatile celebrity, talented as a musician and actor. To date, he has not had many kinks in the armor as far as his Hollywood resume is concerned, but they can be found (Bad Teacher, The Love Guru). This however is his worst performance. Most of the time, Timberlake uses humor as his partner, or a smarmy variation of that (The Social Network), but In Time forces him to be the star in a serious thriller. He simply can't pull it off. Perhaps it was the directions of Andrew Niccol, or Timberlake's own drawbacks, but Will Salas is an embarrassingly unconvincing hero. Watching Timberlake try to unload some of the cheesiest dialogue of the year is akin to observing a bad car wreck unfold. The sequence where Will's mother dies is laughable as Timberlake begins to cry. It doesn't help that the audience had not yet grown comfortable with the fact that Will and his mother are the same "age," but when she "times out" and we are supposed to feel that family connection, it induces chuckles.

2011 has not been the greatest year for Amanda Seyfried either, already finding a place in most critics top 10 worst with Red Riding Hood. Niccol could not be anymore pokerfaced with the material, and this results in the cast being transparent and foolish, especially Seyfried in that wig. Seyfried establishes no chemistry with Timberlake, and her transition from spoiled brat to rebel bank robber is staged in such a juvenile, obvious manner. She struts around like a zombie on the arm of her father, almost as if she is just waiting for a Will Salas type to whisk her away into a life of suspense and adventure. There is a definite disconnect between the script and the cast because no one seems to tackle it with even a hint of amusement or relaxation. Did everyone think this was the next Blade Runner?

Half of the film involves running of some sort. Whenever Niccol has nothing for his two runaways to do, an extended sequence of them fleeing or being chased will follow, which gets repetitive and goofy. One segment displays a car accident with one of the dumbest uses of special effects I have seen in years, so shoddy it would make Ray Harryhausen collapse in disbelief. One of the biggest detriments to In Time is that Niccol fails to outline his universe appropriately. After Will's introductory voice over, you are left with many questions, none of which get answered because all the plot is interested in is reminding us of all the nifty time terms and slang. This is incredibly unsatisfying and provides numerous gaping plot holes.

In Time emanates from Andrew Niccol, who is now the director of two brilliant films in Gattaca and Lord of War and two atrocious efforts being this and S1m0ne. In many ways, this is just an updated version of Gattaca, but In Time also explores the central themes found throughout Niccol's oeuvre, even his scripted offerings like The Truman Show and The Terminal. One is the notion of what makes us all human, defining our existence. The other is being caught in a system. Unfortunately, he doesn't cover any new terrain with these ideas, and to be honest, no passionate attempt to delve beneath the surface is made here. And whenever a character dies, it occurs in exaggerated fashion, as if they're getting shocked, and we're left with no emotions toward their demise.

Niccol veers away from depth and sticks to the unenthusiastic story, a mixture of Logan's Run, Bonnie and Clyde, and Robin Hood. One might do a backflip noticing that legendary Roger Deakins is the cinematographer, but to be fair, In Time looks gorgeous. The slick, pristine sets combined with Deakins capturing exquisite shots at night and of the daytime skyline, at least make the film easy on the eyes. In Time is intended to be an ultra-smart echo of contemporary society in that the wealthy keep helping themselves, while the poor struggle from day to day. That thin message might be effective if Niccol's formula wasn't so lopsided and downright ridiculous. What do you expect from dialogue like this?: "For a few to be immortal, many people must die." About ten minutes into the story, after I discovered what "timed out" meant, I was hoping that phrase would apply to the movie before time ran out on my sanity.

The 411: I wasn't sure what I was expecting from In Time, but I never anticipated such a giant stinky turd as this. Justin Timberlake is indeed a fine actor, and he at least has Friends with Benefits to stand by proudly this year, but In Time is a major misfire from everyone involved except for Roger Deakins. Sadly this is the only effort from the cinematographer this year. This has to be one of the more disappointing films of 2011. The story is only inventive on the surface, the acting is terrible, and the writing is silly. It's also worth noting that since everyone stops aging at 25, the only central cast member that is actually 25 is Amanda Seyfried. Right now writer/director Andrew Niccol's cinematic record stands at 2-2. I would advise against seeing this. watch Gattaca again instead.

Final Score:  4.0   [ Poor ]