In Time

Okay,

Another day, another relatively decent movie. I've caught some other stuff lately (the awful straight to DVD Catch 44, the excellent Warrior, the omnipresent Hunger Games) but the scifi action flick, In Time, seemed the most interesting to write about. I also like the Good, Bad, and Ugly format from my last post, so I'll stick to that or lists. Helps keep me organized. Anyhow...

In Time - written, directed, and produced by Andrew Niccol, a man with a mostly good record. After all, he brought us my favorite Jim Carrey movie, Truman Show, a pretty solid Nic Cage flick with Lord of War, the interesting Gattaca, and the just plain horrid S1Mone.

If Niccol had a trademark, it'd be exploring the idea of humanity (and usually class systems) through an interesting lens. In Time seems to be the closest to a Gattaca meets Minority Report... its a dystopian future with a man trying to set things straight on the run from the authorities.

The Good

1. Production Values/Cinematography

In Time looks really polished and the set design and costumes are solid. I enjoyed the uniforms of the timekeepers and the muscle cars they drove around. Similar to Gattaca, its the far future, but things don't look "that" different, maybe even regressed a bit. I think movies that take this view of the future hold up a little bit better, as movies made in the 60s and 70s set in 2001-2010 show, things don't change that quickly


2. Justin Timberlake/Cillian Murphy

I haven't mentioned it yet, but this movie stars Justin Timberlake. Now I've enjoyed his acting in what I've seen so far... his supporting role in Alpha Dog was solid, he was the best part of Southland Tales, and his frequent Saturday Night Live appearances are pretty hysterical. He's playing a pretty standard stoic action type and doesn't have to display a lot of range, but Timberlake's good looks and charisma always help and I think he could be a viable lead in similar roles.

Cillian Murphy plays the sympathetic police antagonist. Its tricky because this part has already been played extremely well in some similar genre films (Colin Farrell in Minority Report, William Hurt in Dark City, even the Operative from Serenity). Murphy has played some memorable villains and instead of hamming it up, puts forth a somewhat subtle, nuanced performance. After seeing this movie, I'd be interested in how he'd play Inspector Javert (from Les Miserable).


The Bad

1. The Concept

Man is it silly. At the beginning of the movie, Timberlake has a voiceover that says something like "that is how things are, don't question it." To me, the enjoyment of the movie really hinges on whether or not you can swallow the central "time" plot idea. It just seems a little far fetched and full of plot holes. Without massive spoilers... there are so many problems with the movie (the ease at which the "time bank" is robbed, the fact that the barriers between time zones are guarded only with a pretty easy to walk past concrete barrier, etc)

2. The Villains

Cillian Murphy is too sympathetic, the guy from I Am Number 4 (Alex Pettyfor) plays a time criminal, but he's not particularly menacing, and the main time businessman is weaselly, but not out and out evil. On one hand, I think they were trying to put the "system" to blame but I would have liked to have seen a stronger more menacing antagonist for Timberlake to fight against. Even the other timekeepers/time police didn't seem really competent or threatening. Now in a dystopian movie like THX-1138, having the law enforcement be somewhat incompetent because no one really challenged them was interesting, but In Time just came up short when it came to the bad guys.


The Ugly

1. The script

Take The Fugitive meets Logan Run and have the character say the word "time" twice per minute and thats what we get here. It wasn't a particularly original story or characters and a lot of the dialogue is silly to say the least. Even worse, a lot of the character's actions don't seem to make a lot of sense (and there are too many "running against the clock" scenes).

2. The love story

Good lord its forced and also doesn't make much sense. Amanda Seyfried is attractive, but I don't understand why she'd fall for Timberlake so quickly except for the script said so. Also considering how risk averse the rich are in this movie, she played a lot of the more "exciting scenes" as relatively dull surprise. I'd think being in a high speed car chase would be utterly terrifying if you never took any risks (like swimming in the ocean for example). Considering the constant danger she's put through, the fact that she so ardently sticks with Timberlake just doesn't make a lot of sense. I realize they are both attractive and all, but it seems like a tacked on Hollywood love story in a movie that didn't really need one (wasn't Will's family enough motivation?)

So In Time, worth a watch, but definitely flawed... I'd give it a 5/10 - perfectly adequate, but don't go out of your way to see it.