Nordling here.
When it comes to science fiction Andrew Niccol is more like Ray Bradbury than Ben Bova - he's not interested in the technical aspects but on the people affected by the strange futures that he dreams up. SIMONE, flawed as it was, touched upon how technology distances humanity. GATTACA addressed what it meant to be "perfect," genetically. And IN TIME is very much a film about the idea of class and wealth in today's Great Recession society. It's extremely timely in that regard - Andrew Niccol couldn't have predicted the current unrest specifically, but he saw the writing on the wall when he wrote IN TIME, and the result is a film that feels very much an allegory for modern life today.
In the world of IN TIME, humanity has cured every disease imaginable. We have even figured out how to stop aging. Instead of money, the major tool of commerce is time. Specifically, a life time. Since aging now stops at 25, everyone is allotted one year after 25, and people are paid with additions to that life time. While poor people struggle with literally hours left on their clock - for once that clock hits zero, that person dies instantly - the truly wealthy could live for hundreds or even thousands of years.
Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is one of those clockpunchers working in a factory, getting hours added a day to his life. Every day, he and many others live with the possibility that it could very well be their last day on earth. The short timers of that part of town (the long timers are strictly separated from short timers due to toll gates in each section) run around, move fast, and waste little time in their lives. Will's mother Rachel (Olivia Wilde), on her fiftieth birthday, has mere hours left, but manages to trade him time for lunch.
Will head out to a bar after work and sees Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer) flaunting his time to everyone in the wrong part of town. Everyone's time clock is imprinted in green numbers on their right arm, and Henry has over a hundred years on his. After getting Henry out of the clutches of the local gangster (Alex Pettyfer) Henry give Will something he never had - more time than even he dreamed possible.
But Will discovers the truth along with the added time - while the lower classes eke out a short time existence, the wealthy hoard their immortality and the poor die while the rich continue, forever. Will intends to shake up that system, taking rich heiress Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried) from her father. banking mogul Phillippe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser). All the while, Timekeeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) chases them down. It's his job to see that too much time doesn't get into the wrong hands, and Will has become a real threat to the status quo.
IN TIME is full of ideas, and Andrew Niccol explores a world in which the wealthy live forever while the poor run around taking every moment of life they can. The allegory isn't subtle, for certain - we see people borrowing time with interest, and while prices and rates go up, those who can't afford it perish in the streets. Meanwhile the Timekeepers make sure that time stays allotted to the right people, and the lower classes must live out their lives in desperation. IN TIME is rich with ideas, almost too much so, and yet anyone with a liberal bone in their body will practically cheer at the message here, while conservatives will grumble. It's the Occupy Wall Street of science fiction films.
But while the message and the ideas behind IN TIME are fascinating and interesting to explore, the film suffers from serious pacing issues, ironically. For a movie about not wasting any time, it doesn't seem to follow that mantra in the midsection, as Will and Sylvia are on the run from gangsters, the Timekeepers, and Philippe's own hired hands. The allegory may be too on-the-nose for some, but as for myself, I really enjoyed the world Niccol created and all the little things that made it feel "real" - how poor people run everywhere they are going, while the rich leisurely stroll; how the Timekeepers, to keep them in check, are only given a day every day they are on the job; the social castes that separate the rich from the poor. It's well-thought out and intentioned, but it's almost as if Niccol was so busy concentrating on the world he was creating to forget to make a riveting story to put in it.
Justin Timberlake proves he can carry a movie - he's paid his dues with terrific supporting roles and in his first real starring role he does extremely well. I loved Cillian Murphy as well - he's straight out of Tommy Lee Jones FUGITIVE mode here but he's obviously having fun. Less convincing is Amanda Seyfried as Sylvia, the spoiled rich girl who suddenly becomes the people's heroine. I didn't quite believe her character's transformation. But Kartheiser is quite good as the slimy bank mogul Phillippe - hoarding literally eons of time while his own daughter is given a 10 year pittance.
I recommend IN TIME - I enjoyed it quite a bit, but mostly for the social message and the world Niccol builds. It's got pacing problems, some plot holes that are pretty sizable, but it all comes down to the moviegoer and what they are willing to gloss over. I was willing to gloss over quite a bit because of what the film was trying to say, but I still recognized that the problems were there. I may be in the minority on IN TIME - I found it mostly captivating, interesting, and stuffed with ideas, but I could also see how other moviegoers would get frustrated with it. In any case, Niccol has put his hand on the pulse of what's happening in our society right now, and he addresses those issues in a fascinating way. I think IN TIME is worth seeing alone for that.
Nordling, out.
