Saturday, 31 March 2012

27/03/2012: In Time [2011]

In Time is the kind of movie that happens when someone thinks up some interesting idea that can't quite stretch into a great movie. Luckily they were able to slap that gimmick into an already tested, and time proven framework, resulting in a not to bad, movie even if there are a few holes.

Anyone who saw a trailer or heard about In Time, clearly new what the cool and catchy gimmick to In Time was. In the future, everyone lives to be 25, at which point they stop aging, and only have a year left to live. However, as the convenient green clock foretelling your doom ticks away on your arm, time is also the currency of the world. The rich will live immortally, with centuries to waste as long as no freak accident kills them. The poor however live day-to-day, and even minute-to-minute, working and robbing each other for precious seconds of life.

So someone came up with this neat idea, but does it really translate well into a movie? On it's own no. But what tried and true fictional world is perfect for this, well as futuristic dystopian/Utopian society of course. With the world exponentially growing population coming into question, timing people out at the age of 25 sounds like a plausible, if radical solution. As always in such a society however the rich elite and prole classes of society quickly form, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

This time scale doesn't really work. There is no denomination for a single 0. Kinda ruined any witty comment...
The movie rather quickly and successfully builds its dystopian world from, as usual, the proles up. (I'm assuming everyone has read 1984, it's only been mandated in most schools for decades). There are of course the usual loopholes. Most notably, how can a world, where, the technology to embed a glowing clock in ones arm and transfer data through human touch make no technological advances in any other field. Oh well, I'll let that one slide.

With a ~40 million dollar budget however, I will not let that insult of a car crash slide.
The plot of In Time is a decent if overused one. It mixes it's gimmick in with the standard dystopia/utopia formula and does  it successfully. Although were it veers off in new directions is, instead of it's quite revolution, or depressing defeat, In Time turns to a much more Bonnie and Clyde style of things, showing that as much as it want to be philosophical it still wanted to be an action movie.

The cast of In Time feature a number of popular actors that I am not to big a fan of. Starring is of course Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried, the latter whom I didn't recognize until I looked it up. I actually thought it was the actress from The Transporter 3. However, they do give some decent performances in In Time. Leonard from The Big Bang Theory also makes an appearance, although doesn't play much of a role. The main attention grabber when it came to the cast was of course, Olivia Wilde. I'm pretty sure the entire premise of not aging after 25 was used just so they could cast her as being he 50 year old mother. Unfortunately, things don't go are way and she get's very little screen time as well.

The Salvation Army: now literally hands out life by the second.
I had always meant to see In Time in theatres, but unfortunately didn't get to them in time (you knew I had to use that somewhere). I don't think I would have been disappointed, as In Time throws a new and fresh, if slightly flawed gimmick into the tried and true formula used in many famous books and films, such as 1984, Brave New World, and Gattaca. In Time leans a little more towards Gattaca. Just read that Gattaca was directed by Andrew Niccol who directed In Time, well that makes sense. If you haven't seen In Time yet, I suggest you get around to it. It's not on the top of any priority list, nor is it changing anything, but it is solid and fun. Note: Justin Timberlake doesn't sing.

In Time IMDB

No comments:

Post a Comment