Film: In Time

by . Originally posted

— SPOILER FREE REVIEW BY REQUEST —

Timberlake and SeyFried in 'In Time'

The moment I saw the trailer for this I knew I’d end up seeing it at the cinema. The concept of the film is fairly cool and no similar films immediately jump to mind. In ‘In Time’ once you’ve reached the age of 25 your body stops growing and you only have another year left to live, that is until someone (Timberlake) threatens to bring the system to its knees. This should all be fairly obvious to anyone who’s seen the trailer.

Time IS money

Bankruptcy literally kills in ‘In Time’

Thanks to genetic engineering you no longer age normally and to avoid the problem of over-populating the planet, the currency that everyone uses is ‘time’. You can buy and sell time, but once you run out you’ll simply drop to the ground. Everyone is kept up to date with their ‘balance’ by some groovey glowing text on their arm. Quite literally bringing life to the old phrase of “time is money”.

Like many films you’re desperate to see, they’ll either exceed your expectations and become an outstanding film (i.e. Inception, Batman Begins) or they fall far short and you feel somewhat cheated by the final product (i.e. Contagion, War of the Worlds). Unfortunately ‘In Time’ falls into the latter category. The premise is brilliant, in fact I’m very tempted to write an article about the premise alone, but halfway through the film it feels like they’ve run out of places to go with it.

Its not a bad film, don’t get me wrong, I just feel like the director has lost an amazing opportunity here. Perhaps I had simply built it up too much in my mind beforehand?

Without going into too much detail, Justin Timberlake’s character is from the ‘ghetto’, an easy ploy to aid you in automatically sympathising with the character. As long as you don’t miss the constant reminders he’s from a poor background, I’m guessing you should really feel for him as he stands up against the system. Unfortunately again I think the director and actor have failed here, I didn’t care for him at all.

In Time - Timberlake and Seyfried

Timberlake & Amanda Seyfried made a good team on screen but I just don’t sympahise with the ‘ghetto’ boy, sorry guys!

Amanda Seyfried put in a better than okay performance, but still could have been much better. Perhaps my feeling of being let down by the film is now being taken out on reviewing their performance?

Needless to say one of my favourite actors, Cillian Murphy, puts in another good show. Definitely not his best, and he plays it fairly safe compared to his  Dr. Crane / Scarecrow appearance in Batman, but still the actor who shines in ‘In Time’. I’m almost wishing they had spent less time on extending the storyline and more on developing both Murphy’s and Seyfried’s characters.

I know JT is probably meant to be the ‘eye candy’ in this film, helping to draw in the audience, but I think its Seyfried and Murphy’s acting that really saves this from becoming a very disappointing 2 star film. As a massive ‘The Big Bang Theory’ fan I must say it was nice, albeit it slightly weird, seeing Johnny Galecki have a minor role in this film. He played Timberlake’s mate, Borel, and although he didn’t have much to do, what he did do he did well. Well done Johnny 🙂

I’m not sure I can really recommend this film, it’s a great premise and an okay cast, but I left the cinema feeling let down by the main actor (Timberlake) and the director (Andrew Niccol). So only a 3 star ‘average’ stamp from me.

I’m not one for ‘professional’ reviews, but I’ve heard mixed reviews from friends about ‘In Time’. Have you seen it? What did you think?

Like this article?

Categories: Average Films - 3 Stars, Film Reviews

Tags: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Links and useful footery things…

Copyright © 2017 Paul Joyce. Follow me on Twitter or perhaps Google+