Ensign Lestat's Film Log, 01/02/2012
'In Time' is set in a world where humans live with a clock embedded in their arms. This clock is activated once they reach the age of twenty-five, at which time they are given a year to live. To extend their existence humans work for 'time'. Time is now the currency. The richer you are the longer you live and the rich can essentially live forever.
Our protagonist, Will Salas (Justin Timberlake of all people) lives from day to day in Daythen, working in a factory that produces time/ currency readers. His world is turned upside down when he saves the life of drunk, rich guy Henry Hamilton ('White Collar' star Matt Bomer) from the thieving Minute-Men, led by Fortis (Alex Pettyfer).
Hamilton is on an apparent death wish and gives all his time - over a century - to Salas. Salas is excited by this gift, presenting some of it to his longtime friend before planning on celebrating his mother's fiftieth birthday.
Salas and his mother do not get the opportunity to celebrate, unfortunately, so Salas indulges in some retail therapy; he goes to the big city of New Greenwich, spends a night in a hotel suite and wins at gambling. At the casino he meets Sylvia Weiss (Amanda Seyfried) and this is where the film becomes really cumbersome. But more of that later.
Sylvia invites Salas to a party at her father's house, where, unfortunately, Salas is confronted by the police of this world - the Time Keepers, led by Time Keeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy). Salas resists arrest and kidnaps Sylvia, thereby making himself a fugitive. We follow Salas through the rest of the film as he tries to evade the very clever Leon.
I have now watched 'In Time' twice - once in the theater and now at home. I had planned to write a review after watching it the first time, but now is probably a more appropriate time.
The storyline and premise of the film drew me to it the first time. I love allegorical story-telling in cinema, which is probably why I love 'Equilibrium' despite it being a huge flop. There are messages sent out by these films that are relevant to the world we live in. This film definitely is allegorical, but I'm not sure about the message. Writer/ Director Andrew Niccol (Gattaca) has written/ directed several films that are allegorical. This one is essentially informing us of the ills of capitalism (here's hoping I've used the correct term). In a world where people in the ghettos live from day to day, there are others like Sylvia who can ostensibly live forever. It's about living a hand-to-mouth existence when there are others squandering away millions without feeling the pinch. Understandably this is a premise that is more than relevant to our world - but the practices advised by this film to correct the problem are definitely not recommended. Introducing anarchy is not the way to save the world - or at least that's what I believe.
But I digress. There's no point overthinking the plot of the film. The film itself is enjoyable as long as you distance yourself from the in-your-face message. The world of the film feels a lot like our world, barring the green clock embedded in everyone's arms. Keeping the changes simple makes the film more accessible. What some people might find strange in the film is how young the cast is. Being that everyone stops aging at twenty-five, the cast is full of twenty-somethings (though I think Timberlake had probably touched thirty when filming, and Bomer is thirty-four). I didn't find it unusual, but that maybe because I watch a lot of nonsense that has only young people in it.
Timberlake does a passable job as the lead of the film. The only time he faltered (or maybe it's me being biased) is when he's crying over his dead relative. Seriously not convincing! Also, I'm not sure why he was asked to shave his head and not his chin. It's beyond me because his looks are not impressive at all. It's never good when you're wishing the guy who dies in the trailer (Bomer) or worse the bad guy in the film (Pettyfer) should have had the lead role instead of the actor who does have it. Pettyfer is very good as the slimy leader of the thieving Minute-Men - he's frustratingly convincing actually.
The best of the lot is, of course, Cillian Murphy. His Time Keeper is an incredible, dedicated, loyal, unwavering character, and he plays the role with earnest sincerity. I think he faltered just once, but that again might have been me seeing what I wanted to see.
It's the women that disappoint. It always is for me. Olivia Wilde plays Salas' mother - I know, shocker, right? Only in Hollywood! When she first came on screen I was planning to make for the nearest exit, but I needn't have worried, she has a minuscule role. She would have been forgiven if it was a cameo, but it isn't, I'm pretty sure of that. I don't understand the point of taking on such roles - what does anyone get out of it? Anyway, she doesn't do a very good job at all, and I'm glad her appearance was brief.
The main female role is played by Amanda Seyfriend, another person who I can't stand. From whatever roles I've caught of her, she appears to give females a rather bad name. I know these are personal biases coming to the fore, but seriously, she chooses poor roles, and this one takes the cake. Undoubtedly the most useless female protagonist captured on celluloid since Kim Bassinger's Bond girl. She does absolutely nothing but fire the gun at the wrong time. And she doesn't seem to own a decent pair of shoes or clothes for that matter. And what is with that idiotic bob of a wig? Was the hairstylist drunk?
Her character is most annoying - a typical poor little rich girl, written to balance Timberlake's hard-working, good little ghetto lad. Sigh! It was like watching a Bollywood film.
And don't get me started on the beginning voice-over. Directors need to find a better way of introducing the world of the film to the audience.
I guess I wouldn't be complaining so much if it wasn't for the fact that the idea was great. Incredible, in fact. It's just that the execution kills it. For some reason the director felt it necessary to insert talky time-outs between Salas and Sylvia every time the pace of the story picked up. It would have been fine if those two were interesting characters, and an unusual dynamic was forming between them, but those time-outs just proved how unlikable Sylvia was, and how misguided Salas is. The break in the pace was very poor judgement on the director's part.
That and informing the audience of Salas' ace-in-the-hole in the first part of the film. It completely ruined what could have been an exciting climactic scene. If you want your audience to root for your protagonist give them a chance to fear for him/ her first, before giving them an inclination as to what he/ she could do to get him/ herself out of a mess. When Salas faces off with a villain near the end of the film, there is no tension for the audience - we have been informed of what he can do and how he can (and will) do it. So, who cares! I was very surprised by the director's decision-making in this film. As I've harped on before, this could have been a great film, not only enjoyable, but allegorical, but it turns out to be annoying, because of the characters and poor direction.
Our protagonist, Will Salas (Justin Timberlake of all people) lives from day to day in Daythen, working in a factory that produces time/ currency readers. His world is turned upside down when he saves the life of drunk, rich guy Henry Hamilton ('White Collar' star Matt Bomer) from the thieving Minute-Men, led by Fortis (Alex Pettyfer).
Hamilton is on an apparent death wish and gives all his time - over a century - to Salas. Salas is excited by this gift, presenting some of it to his longtime friend before planning on celebrating his mother's fiftieth birthday.
Salas and his mother do not get the opportunity to celebrate, unfortunately, so Salas indulges in some retail therapy; he goes to the big city of New Greenwich, spends a night in a hotel suite and wins at gambling. At the casino he meets Sylvia Weiss (Amanda Seyfried) and this is where the film becomes really cumbersome. But more of that later.
Sylvia invites Salas to a party at her father's house, where, unfortunately, Salas is confronted by the police of this world - the Time Keepers, led by Time Keeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy). Salas resists arrest and kidnaps Sylvia, thereby making himself a fugitive. We follow Salas through the rest of the film as he tries to evade the very clever Leon.
I have now watched 'In Time' twice - once in the theater and now at home. I had planned to write a review after watching it the first time, but now is probably a more appropriate time.
The storyline and premise of the film drew me to it the first time. I love allegorical story-telling in cinema, which is probably why I love 'Equilibrium' despite it being a huge flop. There are messages sent out by these films that are relevant to the world we live in. This film definitely is allegorical, but I'm not sure about the message. Writer/ Director Andrew Niccol (Gattaca) has written/ directed several films that are allegorical. This one is essentially informing us of the ills of capitalism (here's hoping I've used the correct term). In a world where people in the ghettos live from day to day, there are others like Sylvia who can ostensibly live forever. It's about living a hand-to-mouth existence when there are others squandering away millions without feeling the pinch. Understandably this is a premise that is more than relevant to our world - but the practices advised by this film to correct the problem are definitely not recommended. Introducing anarchy is not the way to save the world - or at least that's what I believe.
But I digress. There's no point overthinking the plot of the film. The film itself is enjoyable as long as you distance yourself from the in-your-face message. The world of the film feels a lot like our world, barring the green clock embedded in everyone's arms. Keeping the changes simple makes the film more accessible. What some people might find strange in the film is how young the cast is. Being that everyone stops aging at twenty-five, the cast is full of twenty-somethings (though I think Timberlake had probably touched thirty when filming, and Bomer is thirty-four). I didn't find it unusual, but that maybe because I watch a lot of nonsense that has only young people in it.
Timberlake does a passable job as the lead of the film. The only time he faltered (or maybe it's me being biased) is when he's crying over his dead relative. Seriously not convincing! Also, I'm not sure why he was asked to shave his head and not his chin. It's beyond me because his looks are not impressive at all. It's never good when you're wishing the guy who dies in the trailer (Bomer) or worse the bad guy in the film (Pettyfer) should have had the lead role instead of the actor who does have it. Pettyfer is very good as the slimy leader of the thieving Minute-Men - he's frustratingly convincing actually.
The best of the lot is, of course, Cillian Murphy. His Time Keeper is an incredible, dedicated, loyal, unwavering character, and he plays the role with earnest sincerity. I think he faltered just once, but that again might have been me seeing what I wanted to see.
It's the women that disappoint. It always is for me. Olivia Wilde plays Salas' mother - I know, shocker, right? Only in Hollywood! When she first came on screen I was planning to make for the nearest exit, but I needn't have worried, she has a minuscule role. She would have been forgiven if it was a cameo, but it isn't, I'm pretty sure of that. I don't understand the point of taking on such roles - what does anyone get out of it? Anyway, she doesn't do a very good job at all, and I'm glad her appearance was brief.
The main female role is played by Amanda Seyfriend, another person who I can't stand. From whatever roles I've caught of her, she appears to give females a rather bad name. I know these are personal biases coming to the fore, but seriously, she chooses poor roles, and this one takes the cake. Undoubtedly the most useless female protagonist captured on celluloid since Kim Bassinger's Bond girl. She does absolutely nothing but fire the gun at the wrong time. And she doesn't seem to own a decent pair of shoes or clothes for that matter. And what is with that idiotic bob of a wig? Was the hairstylist drunk?
Her character is most annoying - a typical poor little rich girl, written to balance Timberlake's hard-working, good little ghetto lad. Sigh! It was like watching a Bollywood film.
And don't get me started on the beginning voice-over. Directors need to find a better way of introducing the world of the film to the audience.
I guess I wouldn't be complaining so much if it wasn't for the fact that the idea was great. Incredible, in fact. It's just that the execution kills it. For some reason the director felt it necessary to insert talky time-outs between Salas and Sylvia every time the pace of the story picked up. It would have been fine if those two were interesting characters, and an unusual dynamic was forming between them, but those time-outs just proved how unlikable Sylvia was, and how misguided Salas is. The break in the pace was very poor judgement on the director's part.
That and informing the audience of Salas' ace-in-the-hole in the first part of the film. It completely ruined what could have been an exciting climactic scene. If you want your audience to root for your protagonist give them a chance to fear for him/ her first, before giving them an inclination as to what he/ she could do to get him/ herself out of a mess. When Salas faces off with a villain near the end of the film, there is no tension for the audience - we have been informed of what he can do and how he can (and will) do it. So, who cares! I was very surprised by the director's decision-making in this film. As I've harped on before, this could have been a great film, not only enjoyable, but allegorical, but it turns out to be annoying, because of the characters and poor direction.
Comments