In the not-too-distant future the aging gene has been switched off. To avoid overpopulation, time has become the currency and the way people pay for luxuries and necessities. The rich can live fore...
In Time ironically runs out of time. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the most frustrating film I've seen. Not once. Not twice. Oh no, I have witnessed this approximately ten times, in an attempt to ascertain what exactly is wrong with it. Safe to say, several aspects are incorrect. The ultimate example of "great concept, bad execution". Set in a dystopian future where time is currency, a low paid worker is given over a century and plans to disrupt the system by giving time to poorer communities. The sheer utter brilliance of the idea, the conceptual amalgamation of immortality and wealth, is worth your time. A commentary on modern socioeconomic societies where the poor die and the rich live forever. Life comes at a price, and the cost of living just keeps on increasing so that the world does not become overpopulated. Culling the helpless. There are details within this future that bring the world to life and fully commit to its concept. Time Zones, "timing out", time capsules, Timekeepers and heck, even time itself. So much world building, so little time. The script cannot balance interesting characters whilst explaining the intricacies of the plot's concept. It just can't. The focus on explanations and heavy-handed storytelling results in dull characters that are unable to perpetuate the desperation for survival. Then you have the beautiful cast who must all look the age of 25. Aside from Murphy and Wilde, no one could act convincingly. Timberlake and Seyfried were horrific. Monotonous, boring and, dare I say, atrocious. The romance was so rushed and forced, that it came across as unbelievable. Honestly, after five minutes their in love and robbing time banks? Come on! Their snooze inducing performances are a result of an overpoweringly blunt script that feels like a knockoff Rolex. And it hurts me, it really does. I despise seeing good films go to waste. I tried ten times to find some justification in classing this as "good". But even Deakins' cinematography and Armstrong's mesmerising score just couldn't keep In Time from "timing out". Here's hoping for a remake in a few years...
