Review of In Time (2005) by Harry W — 30 Nov 2013

I originally rejected In Time because it's concept sounded to me like a rip off of Logan's Run and I didn't feel like Justin Timberlake was the right face to put on the story. In Time instead found other reasons for me to reject it.

In Time has an interesting concept, but it's ways of exploring it are bland and tasteless. It seems to use its story just to be able to get away with casting a large quantity of attractive actors ranging from their 20's to early 30's, and many of its visual elements are not that appealing.

The way it visually depicts the characters' transfer of time between then is excessively basic and leaves the story to be one where you could survive by grabbing a person's arm as they sleep. It depicts a fight to the death as an arm wrestle where the winner is the one who can keep their arm on top of the others for long enough, and this supposedly was also a form of actual war which characters fought in. And lastly, the most ridiculous, when Olivia Wilde supposedly runs for 40 minutes, she is actually running for less than 60 seconds which confused me, considering that there is no way a supposedly 50 year old woman in a 25 year old's body could run for about 1.5 hours and not get sweaty or physically affected by it in any other way. I began to theorise that time was also affected by distance travelled, but really it all just proved confusing.

Many of the lines in the script are very confusing too, such as the final line Raymond "Ray" Leon is told before he falls dead before William "Will" Salas eyes. The script is honestly so repetitive and excessively full of time-related puns that I got so sick of hearing the word Time every time anyone uttered it. And for a film where it is said nonstop and is even in the title, that's a serious issue.

Lastly, the plot which is touched upon strangely goes through a series of dynamics so random that they cram too many genres into In Time, such as romantic drama and heist themes. It just never really sticks to its science fiction roots and instead makes if a vague theme where time is a life-threatening allegory for money. Nobody bothers to ask the question "how do they create time?" or "why don't the protagonists becomes time engineers?". It just brushes them off like the first leaf of autumn.

And much of the cast just really can't pull their weight.

Amanda Seyfried is attractive enough, but as a character that becomes a badass bank robber we get no sense that she has developed as a character, instead just the idea that she is an Angelina Jolie lookalike with a Showgirls haircut and a lack of acting talent. She seems to be all in solely for her appearance, but she fails to initiate any chemistry with Justin Timberlake and instead is only memorable for scenes where she is swimming naked or playing strip poker. That's it, and that's not enough.

Alex Pettyffer just had no charisma as a villain and was genuinely unconvincing and visually unthreatening. He just looked like Alex Ryder Stormbreaker attempting to mimick how Han Solo would dress if he were a pirate. He sucked.

And almost the rest of the cast were poor with a few exceptions.

Justin Timberlake was a surprisingly decent lead because he had some charisma of an action hero and the determination of one, which makes him a strong exception. He does manage to sufficiently give one of his more meaningful performances.

And even though his character's role and presence is so small that he's completely irrelevant to the storyline, Johnny Galecki gives a decent performance.

And lastly, Olivia Wilde despite being you her than Justin Timberlake and portraying his mother does in fact manage to be a positive character to the cast.

But aside from that, some decent cinematography and some ok editing, In Time was a high concept story which is overly simplified and too shallow to make for a positive experience, as well as being too scattershot and oddly paced.