Writer / director Andrew Niccol's "In Time" had the potential to be something special as a small scale sci-fi thriller with clear parallels to the world we live in today. Unfortunately, the film is saddled with some truly horrendous dialogue and a plot with more holes than a rind of Swiss cheese...it's not a total loss, but overall it comes off as a decidedly B-level sci-fi film.
Through a brief opening narration, we learn that in the late twenty-first century, humans have been genetically engineered so that they no longer age past 25. Furthermore, time has replaced money as the currency of the realm; it's imprinted digitally on everyone's left forearm. The catch, though, is that whenever a person runs out of time, they die. The best sci-fi films establish a clear understanding of the rules of the world they inhabit...for example, Christopher Nolan spent roughly an hour setting up the rules of his world in "Inception." This film simply lays out the scenario without any explanation and then launches into the plot. Because of this, it took me a while to accept this alternate reality as something plausible; for a while it just comes off as too outlandish and goofy. But the film suffers from far bigger problems than a cheesy sci-fi setup.
As the film opens, we are introduced to Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), a twenty-seven-year-old (or "twenty-five-plus-two" as he puts it), guy living in the ghetto community of Dayton. Will is never able to earn more than a day's worth of time every day, meaning he wakes up every morning with just one day left to live until he collects his "wages" at the end of the day. He has hopes of moving his mother, Rachel (Olivia Wilde) to one of the better "time zones" (yes, there is forcible segregation between people in this world depending on how much time they have), but they seem to be hopelessly in debt. Through random happenstance, Will meets Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer), a 105-year-old man who has a century worth of time on his clock. Henry has decided that he's had enough with the world and wants to die, and he leaves his time to Will (people can exchange time with one another by clasping each others' wrists). Henry then dies and Will is suspected of his murder, but with a veritable eternity of time on his hands he is able to make his way to New Greenwich, the "wealthiest" time zone, where he has grand plans of taking down those who are hoarding all the time while others suffer from day-to-day; the parallels to today's society are incredibly clear. Will ends up getting involved with Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried), the daughter of one of New Greenwich's wealthiest citizens (Vincent Kartheiser of "Mad Men"), and the two end up on the run from timekeepers (the police of this world), lead by Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy), as they attempt to upend the system by robbing banks filled with time and distributing it to the poor in Dayton and elsewhere. Yes, the film basically becomes a sci-fi "Robin Hood" by its final act.
As I said in my opening, the setup here had potential. Unfortunately the rules of this world aren't explained well enough, aren't detailed enough, and ultimately result in numerous plot holes...and not the kind you can write off as "oh, it's just sci-fi, it doesn't have to make sense." These are the type of plot holes that would be plot holes no matter what movie they occurred in. Just one example: Will has never driven a car, and says so. But once he finds himself in New Greenwich with lots of time on his hands, he buys one and instantly becomes a driver with skills rivaling that of Ryan Gosling's character in "Drive." There are plenty of other nonsensical scenarios that after a while just pile up too much to be overlooked. There also, as I mentioned, a fair amount of simply dreadful dialogue. No character escapes it, but Timberlake and Murphy manage to make it sound less bad than everyone else, probably because they're simply the best actors in this film. Timberlake has proven his acting chops in "The Social Network" and "Alpha Dog," and he's adequate here. Murphy always has a huge amount of charisma, and as such he fares the best under the weight of the at times dreadful script. Seyfried has never really impressed me as much as she's really just always played a wide-eyed innocent of one type or another, and she's no different here. Kartheiser is appropriately smarmy as the villian, Philippe Weis, but Alex Pettyfer is truly horrid as the leader of a group of thugs called minutemen.
I did mention that the film isn't a total loss, and it's not. In spite of the cheesy setup, I did find myself rooting for the characters, and even caring what happens to them at the end. The action is well done, and there are some legitimately intense moments. Niccol clearly has a gifted eye as a director, and he's helped immensely by legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins; Craig Armstrong contributes a pulsating, lively score.
Overall, however, "In Time" is just saddled with too many problems to be enjoyable. Niccol's script should have been given a once-over by a more seasoned writer, someone who could iron out all the plot holes and dreadful dialogue. Had that been the case, this could have been a much more impressive film, as the parallels to modern society are clearly there. But ultimately, it's not worth your time.
"In Time" is rated PG-13 for violence, some sexuality and partial nudity, and strong language.
Running time: 109 minutes.
Released domestically on October 28, 2011, by Twentieth Century Fox.
2 stars out of 4.
No comments:
Post a Comment