Summary: In a future where time is literally money, and aging stops at 25, the only way to stay alive is to earn, steal, or inherit more time. Will Salas lives life a minute at a time, until a windfall of time gives him access to the world of the wealthy, where he teams up with a beautiful young heiress to destroy the corrupt system. (20th Century Fox)
Starring: Amanda Seyfried, Cillian Murphy, Justin Timberlake, Alex Pettyfer, Matthew Bomer, Vincent Kartheiser, Cillian Murphy
I was very much looking forward to In Time simply because of the fantastic premise that was set up within the film. The movie chronicles a future where human beings are bio-engineered to live until the age of 25 and their time is basically their currency. Goods and services are purchased with time, so basically, time really is money in this scenario. Added to this premise is that Fox has been on a nice run of movies exceeding my expectations with some of their recent releases (Rise of the Planet of the Apes and X-Men: First Class).
Like I mentioned, this is a great premise to base a movie off of, so why did I hate In Time? First and foremost, the dialogue was absolutely dull and lifeless in both its context and delivery. I am a fan of both Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried, although I am more biased towards Seyfried because she is just adorable to look at. Both of their characters were as stiff as could be and the dialogue was tough to listen to throughout much of the movie. I often wondered if I was missing something in the film with such stuff performances, but I think that they were simply just poor performances.
Also, for a sci-fi/action/thriller, it was weak on all aspects of the film. There was almost no science fiction to be found in this one outside of the scientific aspects of the storyline. The action sequences were weak and pointless to the general plot of the film. Thrilling? Hell no.
There are so many possibilities that could have been explored with the entire “time is money” scenario. Issues such as the value of living versus the value of simply existing could have been expanded on. Sylvia (Seyfried) was a character that simply existed, but never really “lived” a real day in her life. The character was so underdeveloped and poorly utilized in the film. In truth, the film seemed to be thrusting its political views down your throat on how poor the economic system really is.
Now, this is just me nitpicking, but the future really could have looked a little more like anything but the present. There were absolutely no indications that this was the future outside of the clocks on the people. This was another huge misfire by the team.
Honestly, there is much that I could really say about how this film let me down, but the major bone that I can pick with this one is that it had every chance to succeed, but did everything possible to fail.