People who see a lot of films (and especially those that write about them) know that a mediocre movie is, in many ways, worse than a bad movie. Straight-up bad movies give us the chance to enjoy their badness, to revel in them even (at times). They give us unintentional comedy, bad acting, dreadfully yummy terrible dialogue, and sometimes all of the above. Mediocrity breeds contempt – we’re left with something not good enough nor bad enough to love or hate.
What’s worse is potential spoiled. Think Lindsay Lohan or an athlete with all of the tools save a head that keeps them away from trouble. Sci-fi films seem to bask in this area, with the squandered corpses of Daybreakers, Repo Men and Surrogates just the most recent victims. Potentially brilliant films that piss away their talents in favor of mindless gore or wooden acting or convoluted stories.
In Time is particularly vexing. It comes from the mind of two of the premier sci-fi-lite stories of the last 15 years, Andrew Niccol, the writer-director of Gattaca and the writer of The Truman Show, two films that caught audiences’ imaginations and hearts. Since then, he took a stab at a techie fantasy (S1m0ne, which bombed miserably, both critically and commercially) and a crime thriller (Lord of War, which was a mild success but didn’t catch on culturally like his earlier work; it also starred Nic Cage, which couldn’t have helped). In Time, from the get-go, appeared to be a spiritual sequel to Gattaca, another DNA-laced, futuristic thriller, complete with vintage vehicles this time around, too.
Methinks he doth cling too much to his past, whilst learning nothing from it. Where Gattaca was graceful and beautiful, In Time is clunky and laden with more manufactured drama than helices of DNA. It might well have been called Countdown: The Movie.
In the world of In Time, humans have (somehow, just go with it) figured a way to cease the aging process at the ripe old age of 25. There’s a catch, though, as time has literally become money, a conceit that’s pounded into our heads so many times I can’t escape the puns. For whence you turn a quarter-century, a magical implanted (or something) timer on your arm starts to count down to 0 seconds from one year – in other words, you only get to live to 26…unless you purchase and/or steal time from others, a tactic so hastily plotted that the loose ends build up like, uh, sands in an hourglass.
This is the setup we’re sold, and while Niccol probably convinced himself that the commentary on class warfare was noble, and the 99/1 per cent seems awfully relevant, especially in light of real-world events that have transpired since the film finished production, the film instead turns into a futuristic Robin Hood tale…just with heaps and heaps of manufactured ticking clock drama.
♥♥
Also of note:
* If there’s one reason to see this for sure, or to at least keep an eye out on YouTube for in a few months, it’s what might just be the worst practical effect I’ve seen in a big-budget film in years. A car crash so unbelievably fake and obviously done using scale models that it goes from “not even funny, just sad” to “wow, that’s hilariously bad.” There’s something off with the sound editing or something, it’s just…it has to be seen.
* Amanda Seyfried is forced to run for so long whilst wearing high heels that even my feet hurt for her, not to mention my ability to believe that anyone could run that far or that fast while wearing said footwear. All in the name of fashion and/or making her appear closer to her co-star’s height, I suppose.
Andrew (8)
Wayne (8)
John (6)
Josh (6)
Jessica (5)
Justin (5)
Lauren (5)
Steve (5)
Dave Enkosky (4)
Sir Phobos (4)
Twitter: ThatbadassJC
November 2, 2011 10:38 pm
I wanted this one to be good, but it seems like that’s not the case. Although i think Daybreakers was pretty good.
Twitter: manilovefilms
November 3, 2011 9:44 am
I wanted to like Daybreakers possibly even more. It had a really cool concept, but c’mon, the last act was completely awful, and it’s not like the first two were that much better. It turned into an orgy of blood instead, veering far and away from any social commentary.
Twitter: NeverTooEarlyMP
November 3, 2011 1:23 am
Sad to hear that this one is going down. I liked the premise, but wasn’t so sure about Timberlake. But based on what you’ve written it sounds like Niccol might have been the weak link?
I still think I might enjoy it, but sounds like a rental.
Great job on the review!
Twitter: manilovefilms
November 3, 2011 9:46 am
Timberlake is fine. He’s not great by any means, but he’s competent and somewhat fun to watch.
Seeing it as a rental sounds appropriate, though it’ll likely still be just as disappointing three months from now.
Nice to know that I’m not alone in my hatred for this movie. It’s boring sci-fi where the drama and the rules are barely paid attention to. Oh look Timberlake is running he must be poor.
The film is a bore and my god did they have to make all those frigging “time” puns?
Twitter: manilovefilms
November 3, 2011 9:49 am
Don’t waste my time, Andrew! Can you spare some time? Time out!
I must run for 5….4…..3…..2…..1 more second!!!!!!!
Twitter: agracru
November 3, 2011 8:01 am
Yep. This one’s a dud.
The further I’ve gotten away from In Time the more I’ve grown to loathe it. It’s really not the worst movie I’ve seen this year, but for all of the greatness it could have achieved and instead spurned, it’s earned my ire. Where do I even start?
Really, the film’s problems start and end with the script. Niccol is being too clever and too broad for his own good, and he’s not circumspect enough to have foreseen the problems the scope of his story would introduce into the delivery of narrative and plot. So much of In Time should have been trimmed out of the script outright. Fortis, Will’s mother, Will’s friend, the unnecessary “fight” mechanic, the directionless and valueless plot thread about Will’s father– all of these elements add absolutely nothing to Niccol’s world or his story, and instead just bog things down. Will’s vengeance arc seems incredibly thin, largely because Hamilton’s exposition dump is constipated, forced, and trite; we get that Will blames the time-stocking upper class for his mother’s death, but the device by which he receives that information is truly bad writing. So he never feels justified.
Niccol also moves around too much and wreaks havoc on his own cinematic geography as a result. Will’s first journey to New Greenwich feels like it takes hours, which it rightly should because why wouldn’t the wealthy put as much distance between themselves and the rabble as possible, but during the film’s final chase, he and Silvia move from Dayton to New Greenwich in what feels like a matter of minutes. It’s jarring and discombobulating. (Apart from the truly stupid method by which Niccol resolves the blockade keeping them out of New Greenwich. More on that in a moment.) When Will first gets to New Greenwich, the film should have just stayed there. Going back and forth between Dayton and NG feels like a slog, and the scenes in Dayton aren’t so unique that they couldn’t have taken place in Rich Town. There’s no sense to this.
And then there’s just the flat-out incompetent stuff; not just that car crash, which got a laugh from the audience at the screener I attended, but also Will driving through the barrier between him and New Greenwich. If it’s that easy to bypass the time toll required to move between the poor areas of the world and New Greenwich, why hasn’t anyone else figured it out yet? How have the poor not just gang-rushed the barriers and busted them down if Will can just drive through one in a luxury car without so much as denting it? It’s just stupid writing and bad filmmaking.
There are high points here; when Niccol focuses on world-building, he’s good at it, and Timberlake is a compelling leading man. (Plus he does get a really awesome action beat at the end, even if it does revolve around the idiotic “fighting” mechanic”.) But the highs don’t trump the lows, and In Time comes out as a watered-down and badly structured and composed piece of wanna-be speculative sci-fi.
Twitter: manilovefilms
November 3, 2011 9:43 am
Ugh, how could I forget to mention the ridiculous geography and rules structured around it. It was insane! Yes – the initial trip to New Greenwich apparently took hours, and then the drive back mere minutes, with just one roadblock to go through rather than 4 (or more). Then they did it again later in the film. I hated that shit because it was so lazy…did no one watch the film and question these things?!?
Totally agree that the action need not have returned to Dayton (especially the last time).
Not only is the fighting mechanism idiotic, but the readily available theft of time by anyone. Let’s suppose you’re poor. All you need to do is save up, buy a few year (or pool together with friends), travel legally to New Greenwich, chum up with some timerich sucker and wait until they’re sleeping. Have yourself a handshake, stay awhile (hidden) to keep the timekeepers off your back, then head home or wherever you want. Anyone can steal from anyone at any time – why was Fortis the only one doing this – why wasn’t it anarchy?
Twitter: agracru
November 4, 2011 10:03 am
These are all questions Niccol didn’t really consider. I think the Minutemen are problematic on multiple levels, both thematically and in terms of the effect they have on the narrative, and frankly they could have been axed without really effecting the film’s primary arc. I don’t know if I mind how easily transferred time is between one person and another, but I do mind that there are apparently no security measures in place to combat easy theft and I’m really incredulous that the Timekeepers would overlook the activities of someone like Fortis. He’s kind of manipulating where the time goes. If that’s the concern of the Timekeepers, then the film betrays it with whatever thin justification it provides for Fortis’ continued thuggery.
In point of fact I kept hoping that Fortis’ arc would resolve with a run-in with Leon. That would have felt much more appropriate, and maybe benefited Leon’s persona as a lawman.
World-building is really, really crucial to science fiction, and I think Niccol drops the ball. The geography sucks, and apart from the neat things differentiating the rich from the poor– I did like the waitress calling Will out for doing everything too fast– there’s really not much to Niccol’s vision.
Twitter: MarkusWelby1
November 3, 2011 3:33 pm
so is it just in America that everyone is 25? what about jungle dwellers untouched by civilization? Is the time mechanism installed at birth? some babies are born in taxi cabs. can you set your arm clock to wake you up with your favorite i-pod tunes? If so would it also have a snooze button?
Twitter: manilovefilms
November 10, 2011 2:39 pm
Sorry for the late response – procrastination turned into forgetfulness.
These are all very good questions, and they’ll be answered in the sequel, “Running Out of Time,” which was what this one should have been called.
Or they’re just a bunch of gaping wide plot holes.
I am so in line with you on this one it’s scary. From everything you said about In Time to all the other disappointing sci-fi films you mentioned. Also on your notes:
(1) I ALMOST FORGOT ABOUT THAT UNTIL JUST NOW! Hahahaha it was so ridiculous, I kept feverishly scanning the audience to see if anyone had the same bewildered reaction that I had. I was like “wait… are people buying this? IS THIS REAL LIFE?”
(2) I think it’s so funny you said that because I couldn’t keep my eyes off of it. So much so that there is a scene towards the end where I noticed she is wearing considerably smaller heels when she is running vs. standing/talking to Will. It’s probably not a goof though, because in fact in the near future your heels are able to adjust to different heights.
Twitter: manilovefilms
November 10, 2011 2:42 pm
Great minds and all that, Lindsay. Aside from your predilection towards horror flicks, I find that I’m generally in line with you a lot (Rob, too).
I’m still dying to watch that car crash again (and again…and again). It’s the stuff of legend.
So is it a bigger disappointment than Splice, or is it an equal disappointment?
Twitter: manilovefilms
November 10, 2011 2:44 pm
Ooohhh, great question, Thaddeus!
After some deliberation, I say In Time is a bigger disappointment. Splice was pretty solid for much of its run time – it was just the idiotic ending that took it off the rails. In Time never really goes off the rails, but it never gets on them, either, if you know what I mean. It was blah more or less from the start, and the disappointment set in early on.
I so loved this film.
Yes true after the first viewing I realized that it was a B movie destined to die quickly at the cinema.
Subsequent viewings however have convinced me of the movie’s final destiny: a cult classic.
The green colors and the clothing style and the cool cars…
Despite the juvenile dialogue, I totally love this movie.
Seen it three times now, once at cinema, once on small screen at home (DVD), and once on a large home theatre (DVD).