Review: In Time

In Time. Justin Timberlake (too much of a stretch?) stars in this dystopian Robin Hood meets Bonnie and Clyde story, which does a few things right but misses the mark on most counts. We, as humans, have a strange fascination with the future and what will become of, so this is the latest adventure to exploit a crazy (and completely unexplained) scenario.

In the future, we use time as currency. Okay, I’m with you. The rich can live forever, while the poor die on a daily basis. Justin stars as a poor fellow who is given 116 years by a stranger and starts a huge snowball effect. It turns into a Robin Hood story, as Justin fights to take the time of the rich and give to the poor (not really a spoiler, it happens pretty quick).

So what works? Justin has a natural charisma, which works some of the time. Amanda Seyfried is okay, until she starts talking. A stellar actress she’s not. The premise is the most solid point to be made. It’s creative and you can tell the filmmakers had some fun with it, but did they end up running too far with it and lose sight of the shore?

What doesn’t work? Timberlake is supposed to be this tough as nails factory worker who is living (literally) day to day. This is hard to believe when he busts out the trademark smirk or witty one-liners. He was a little too true to his own personality instead of taking on that of our lead hero. As said above, Seyfried shouldn’t talk.

With such a new and complicated premise, we (as the audience) deserved some more background. Zero information was given on how we ended up using time as a currency. And we somehow have this technology, but cell phones seem to not exist anymore. There are a boatload of inconsistencies and questions that distract from the enjoyment of the movie.

Also, it is a chore to keep track of time. People give and take time throughout the whole movie, meaning they could go from rich to nearly dead instantly and it’s crazy trying to remember how much time people have. And when it flashes to their bright neon clocks on their arms, it’s formatted like 216:10:27:02 and I cannot decipher what that means in a brief flash. Maybe because I’m a “words” not a “numbers” person, but regardless I was confused.

My biggest complaint is the film just never really capitalized on its unique premise. There are a few action scenes which had me nod my head and say, “Awesome,” but not nearly as many as there should have been. When this film will be inevitably compared to other films like “Gattaca,” “Paycheck,” “Minority Report,” etc…, there’s not enough going on here to make this film rise to the top. It’s an entertaining movie, but not one that’s going to stick with you. I was in the parking lot and already stopped thinking about it.

Overall. Decent. Cool premise but unfulfilled potential. I wouldn’t waste your $10, wait for Redbox or Netflix.


About adamryen

Entertainment. Gaming. Dreaming.
This entry was posted in Movies. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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