IN TIME, wr. and d. Andrew Niccol, USA, 2011

I only went to see this having been invited out by a couple of Korean friends; we had no plans what to watch, and since I don't speak Korean and they don't speak English, we didn't have much of a discussion! Only when I into the theatre did I realise the film stars Justin Timberlake. Oh my, I thought. Does he act?


Well, no. He doesn't. But the fact that his and the lead actress's (Amanda Seyfried) acting is so wooden it often gives the feel of a school play is not necessarily damning of the whole film. It's certainly an interesting film, and fantabulous acting is not always, to my addled mind, essential to enjoyment. (Remember, I think Van Damme is ace.)


Plus there's always Cillian Murphy. He acts just fine, and also wears cool Matrix-like clothes which help make up for Timberlake and Seyfried's shortcomings, although his boots do look rather too big for him - to the extent of being distracting at times.


The film seems as if it's based on a short story by Ray Bradbury or Philip K. Dick (which is a compliment), and is clearly inspired by the likes of Logan's Run (d. Michael Anderson, USA, 1976). I can't find any sources saying it is, though. But the idea of making time into the global currency, and of manipulating the system so that most people remain poor while a few get rich (having up to a million years of life ahead of them in this currency), is a fascinating and inventive one - and one that works nicely as a dramatic device, too: you'll know this if you've seen the film and watched as Will Salas (Timberlake) runs towards his mother as she's - quite literally - running out of time. The repetition of this moment later in the film is a nice device, too - and one element that indicates that even if In Time isn't brilliantly scripted or acted, it does have its virtues. The way in which advances in genetic engineering are thrown into the mix is also intriguing, and enables the film to enter into current pop culture as well as more philosophical debates about the ethics of genetics and their relationship to wealth and power. That alone makes the film worth a watch.


What IS a bit rough, though, is the painfully overt way in which the film operates as a parable about the current 'global' banking crisis. It's just too heavy-handed, really. A shame, as it's not such a bad parable to have, now is it? But it has nothing of the subtlety (ha ha) of the anti-Communist sci-fi flicks of the Cold War era, so it wears a bit thin rather quickly for me. 


The 'love conquers (or at least battles) all' is a bit naff, too, really - although I suspect I'd have found it less so had the two lead characters been defined as older than they are by the plot; that would have added a more convincing and compelling twist. That said, the film's message that living life to the full - and having the opportunities to do just that - is more important than a long life as such, is not a bad one; nor is the notion that love - of life, of other people - can motivate people to challenge 'the system' (even if they're one of the wealthy ones). It might be naff, but that doesn't make it wrong!


[Mild spoilers in this paragraph]
The under-developed comments about Will's father, the way in which Cillian Murphy's "Timekeeper" character dies, and the failure to look much beyond heterosexual romantic relationships as a way/motive to 'challenge the system' are some of the film's failings... and there are many more. But despite its wooden stars and pop philosophy, I quite enjoyed it, and think its ideas work well on the big screen. I'm not convinced it's better than TimeCop, mind you.