In Time. Rated M (violence and infrequent coarse language). 109 minutes. Written and directed by Andrew Niccol.
It is only the intriguing ‘time as currency’ premise that keeps this laboured, poorly-structured film afloat – and while it’s a masterstroke of story-lining (represented by the digitally-enhanced timepieces embedded on everyone’s forearms), it ultimately becomes unforgivably tedious as one more ‘what you do with your time money’ metaphor crashes to the ground. Like a really big, heavy rock.
When Will Salas’s (Justin Timberlake) mum (Olivia Wilde) dies in his arms having been unable to afford the two-hour bus fare, young Will becomes determined to break free from the poverty-stricken ghetto where he lives, and hold the rich to account for the unfair distribution of time.
Unable to decide whether it’s Robin Hood, Bonnie and Clyde or just an incredibly under-produced sci-fi epic (look out for the scene starring Mr Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried and an uncredited couch), In Time constantly threatens to capitalise on its fascinating premise – and never does. Instead, Hollywood’s hottest young things all wander around looking gorgeous, dazed and confused – but none more so than poor Cillian Murphy (as timekeeper Raymond Leon) who appears to be struggling to cope with whatever the hell’s supposed to be going on.
Ms Seyfried (as rich girl Sylvia Weis) wins major respect for managing to run city blocks in heels the size of small skyscrapers, while fans of television’s Mad Men will recognise Vincent Kartheiser in his big-screen debut as her father, Philippe.
To his credit, Mr Niccol (Gattaca) has delivered a timely riff on class, greed, population control and revolution – important contemporary themes that are increasingly playing out in our daily global news coverage. It’s just a shame that the cinematic possibilities his story constantly threatens to unleash never actually eventuate.
Pictured: Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried in In Time.
This review was commissioned by the Geraldton Newspaper Group and the print edition is included below.
"In Time" is a remake of an old movie (or short film) with practically exactly the same premise–-and I'm not talking about "Logan's Run." This older film, whose name unfortunately I cannot remember, featured the same societal system in which people were born with a built-in expiration clock. They earned (and spent) time instead of money, living a mostly wretched existence somewhere outside of an enclave of very rich people who lived practically as immortals.
ReplyDeleteIn the film I'm thinking of a baby is given not 25 years but a longer time (50 years?) at birth. The film starts with the protagonist as a young boy, hustling minutes and hours by buying valuables from people and selling them to visiting tourists from the rich enclave.
After his sister dies after gambling away her time, the protagonist sets out on a journey to the "immortal" enclave in order to save the life of his mother, who is approaching 50. He gets there and meets an immortal woman who gradually co-opts him into the immortal lifestyle.
It was a very thoughtful film, in a way that this more simplistic remake is not. I'm amazed that apparently nobody remembers this old film, but thinks that "In Time" uses an original premise, when in fact it does not.
I found the older film. It was a short film from 1987 entitled "The Price of Life."
ReplyDeleteSee: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0366919/
And before that film, the same premise was used in a short story entitled "Time is Money." You can read the entire short story at the following website:
http://pjb.hopto.org/index.php?id=7&xr=19
Hi Eric, and thank you for your comments. I don't get many – and it's great when someone drowns out the sound of my own voice with theirs. So thank you.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't convinced that the 'time is money' plot was original (I certainly wasn't convinced it was enough to call it so) – but, unlike you, I couldn't put my finger on precisely where it might have come from (apart from clichés – which Mr Niccol mostly manages to avoid).
Thank you, too, for the link to the earlier film. It's most excellent detective work, and great to see the 'original' referenced in this instance. Regrettably, it's not surprising given Hollywood's predilection for harvesting the back catalogue. I am wondering, now, whether "In Time" actually references this earlier work somewhere in its credits?
The short story, too, is an excellent link. Thank you.