Okay, now there were several reasons why In Time was not high on my list of movies that I wanted to see, most of them beginning and ending with Justin Timberlake. I have seen him play bit parts okay, but from experience his presence in a film has indicated that the film is not really worth my presence (like the disappointing Southland Tales). However, with some hits under his belt (like The Social Network), I had thought that perhaps he had cast off those box office poison shackles and was ready to claim a career as a talented thespian.
But not with In Time.
No, his big emotional scene where he sits in the middle of a deserted street crying into the air with frustration and despair is akin to watching the revised Darth Vader screaming "Noooo" in any scene, so is a cringe worthy experience that had me looking away from the scene to hide my embarrassment (not that I needed to in a darkened cinema).
Okay, I am going to be brutal about this film. Perhaps not as brutal as Kate Rodger, who gave this one star (after I had chosen to go see it; damn), but, unlike the highly expressive woman to my right who gasped at every G-rated shirtless scene and screamed with delight at every telegraphed shock, I did not think that this was one of the greatest films that I have ever seen. Because I have seen a few.
The style is very retro futuristic, a future much like Gattaca, which is not surprising considering they share the same director in Andrew Niccol, but it is much less successful in its realisation, probably because it's just not as good. The people of this unspecified future time are genetically engineered to stop aging at 25, though the amount of time they have to enjoy that life is dependent on the economics of "time sharing". All women have been further genetically enhanced to be able to run long distances at speed in unfeasibly tall high heeled shoes (definite Darwinism there). However, this is a future with electric cars styled from the 1960s, and mobile phones and computers have likewise ceased to exist (it was the death of Steve Jobs, I tell you), and computers are barely seen and never heard. The story follows people trying to get themselves, and others, more time to live, and the Big Evil Corporations who are trying to stop them.
I can't really blame the actors for how flat it all is. Oh, okay, I can. Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried are all big eyes and run around a lot (in high heels), but they aren't terribly engaging characters. The villains are pretty bland too. There is a bit of mumbo jumbo of the "for a few to live forever, many must die" variety, but it doesn't really make a lot of sense. If they are they saying that there aren't resources enough for the population on the planet (a problem we currently have, no?), then that means our "hero" is fighting for the right for an environmental catastrophe; if it just about corporate greed, then there is actually no reason for the many to die and living forever is just seen as a status thing, which therefore makes the phrase pretty meaningless.
But then, the whole film is pretty vapid. And, at around two hours, it is needlessly long to boot. But, as mentioned, some of the audience thought this was the best thing since the digital watch (not the one imprinted in ones arm). And Johnny Galecki got to cast off his Big Bang Theory inner geek and got a simply gorgeous wife in the form of Yaya DaCosta - no wonder he signed up for the film!
Verdict: In Time has the unfortunate side effect of draining two hours from your life, though you notice it as you tend to keep watching your wrist watch for its entire length. No, that is too harsh: it was completely passable and instantly forgettable trash with delusions of depth. Not a one star, but not much more. Four years out of a decade.
No comments:
Post a Comment