Saw In Time last weekend. This is the sci-fi thriller starring Justin Timberlake where humanity now uses time as currency instead of cash. This is also Timberlake’s first lead role in a drama. My thoughts?
The concept behind In Time is actually very original and very cool. Humans now stop aging at 25 and are given a year to live. Obviously people can earn more time, but if one is super rich, they can literally have eons banked away and become immortal. However the poor have to work hours on end, even steal just to get mere minutes more in a day. If someone’s internal clock strikes zero–instant death. Time can also be traded by grabbing one’s wrist and stating how much time you want to exchange.
There are little things that happen in the movie that are pretty inventive. For instant, you can tell someone is ‘from time’ in how they move. Poor folks are always moving quickly and rushing everywhere because they literally don’t have time to waste. Where as the rich move more slowly, because they have all the time in the world. There is also a good but less than subtle reference to how the rich are screwing the poor out of every single minute so they can live forever. For the few to survive, many must die. An interesting twist on the old Spock saying from Star Trek.
However, after an interesting start, the movie falls flat toward the middle. I don’t want to give away too much but lets just say Timberlake works better in comedy roles and comes off very stiff as lead character ‘Will Salas’. There are several other areas that don’t work either, including a pointless subplot about Will’s father that ultimately goes nowhere. Also, Matt Boomer’s character, a super rich guy who gives Will Salas all of his time and then ‘clocks out’ (their term, not mine) doesn’t really give Will any other tools to help change the current currency system. Also, I never really bought the love affair between Will Salas and Amanda Seyfried’s spoiled rich girl character. In short, In Time had great ideas but never fully capitalizes on any of them, becoming very run of the mill toward the end.
And on a quick note, I get that Justin Timberlake is doing his ‘acting’ thing now, but Timberlake not making music is a loss to music. Is Timberlake not acting really a loss to the film industry? Might be better for the Timberlake brand to do both at the same time ala J.Lo. Just saying.
Leave a Reply