In Time - (October 28, 2011): PG-13
Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Opening Weekend Box Office: #3 with $12,050,368
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $23,990,237
Gross Revenue: $61,590,237
Production Budget: $40 million
Director: Andrew Niccol
Between his success in music (N’SYNC and an impressive solo career), television (Saturday Night Live collaborations with Andy Samberg), and newfound popularity in film (thanks to The Social Network), to call Justin Timberlake multi-talented is a bit of an understatement, but In Time would represent his first chance to truly lead a Hollywood blockbuster on his own. Based on the leading man’s popularity alone, 20th Century Fox wouldn’t have that much of a challenge in generating audience interest, but the filmmakers were certainly swinging for the fences by including a well-known cast (Olivia Wilde’s presence alone guaranteed my ticket purchase), unique premise, and action-thriller slant. If anything, the idea of a distinctly sci-fi dystopian future with a freedom fighter engaging in a form of anti-establishment civil disobedience echoed the type of surprise that The Matrix offered over a decade ago. Unfortunately, some negative buzz for In Time was generated when a plagiarism suit was filed alleging that the plot of the film was based on Harlan Ellison’s award-winning short-story, “Repent Harlequin!” Said the Ticktockman; having read this story in high school, the comparison of the two only furthered my interest in the film. As a fan of the cast, the imaginative diegesis, and the alleged source material, it was an absolute no-brainer seeing In Time.
Set in 2161, In Time introduces a world in which humanity has been genetically engineered to stop aging at 25, at with point each individual’s allotted one year of “living time” begins to expire and is displayed in bright green numbers on the forearm. When an individual’s clock expires, their heart automatically stops, and with time used and exchanged as currency, lower social classes struggle to survive in the face of increasing costs of living, while the rich have the potential to live forever. Lower class factory worker Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), who is 28 in real time, lives with his 50-year-old mother, Rachel (Olivia Wilde), and manages to squeak by; however, one day Will saves the 105-year-old Henry Hamilton (White Collar’s Matt Bomer) from a group of mobsters known as “Minutemen,” and in gratitude, the disillusioned Hamilton gifts Will with nearly all of his remaining time. Reveling in his newfound wealth, Will is tragically unable to save Rachel when an unexpected price increase causes her clock to expire…the now-infuriated Will vows revenge on the institution that claimed his mother’s life. Moving to an upper-class “Time Zone” and mingling with the insanely rich, Will soon runs afoul of law-enforcement agents known as “Timekeepers” who are investigating Hamilton’s death; before Timekeeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) can make an arrest, Will kidnaps wealthy heiress Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried). Eventually opening Sylvia’s eyes to the injustice present in current society, the two “outlaws” decide to work together and upset the established order by stealing and redistributing as much time as possible, which is, effectively, this reality’s greatest crime.
Building an entire world and infrastructure based on the idea of time as currency and life-blood is incredibly imaginative, and director Andrew Niccol is able to bring the reality to life in a credible and truly believable way; whether that includes banks distributing hours at different interest rates, sports cars costing months, or high-stakes poker games betting centuries. With such a volatile infrastructure put forward, In Time also makes some truly profound sociological implications that are sure to leave audiences pondering the current wealth gap that exists between the rich and poor…if you don’t believe me, consider the look of fear on Olivia Wilde’s face when she realizes her clock is about to run out because she could not afford a bus ride after a rash price hike. Seriously, what would you do if you suddenly had a clock on your arm counting down the seconds until your death? A pleasantly unexpected element of the film also includes Justin Timberlake’s likeable performance as the hero, which parallels brilliantly with Cillian Murphy’s egotistical and driven antagonist. In Time also offers a balanced pacing by including action to complement the deeper themes, which provide a welcome respite from the seriousness that can be overwhelming at certain points. However, in spite of these significantly positive accolades, there are some pretty blatant shortcomings than hinder the film’s overall potential.
For as much as I enjoyed In Time, I still cannot completely ignore the weak acting, one-dimensional characters, poor editing, and incomplete narrative elements that weaken the film. Positioning Justin Timberlake as an action hero could easily have ended in disaster, but even though he was able to hold his own, the young actor still demonstrates significant inexperience: his “crying” scene is so forced and unnatural that it is almost embarrassing. When it comes to Amanda Seyfried, she generates considerable chemistry with Timberlake, but her character is so over-sexualized that she does little more than lustfully glance at the leading man and strip-down…don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining, but she is far too talented of an actress to be relegated to mere eye-candy. In terms of film editing and narrative cohesion, In Time commits some pretty significant missteps: I can forgive the introduction of a certain plot-point without eventual resolution, but catching an obvious stunt-double clearly performing one of Timberlake’s supposed action scenes just seems lazy. Still, even with all of these criticisms, I feel that the unique nature of In Time makes the film more than worth seeing.
From a box office perspective, In Time has performed below analyst expectations, but I don’t believe it is fair to characterize the film as a failure once you consider the competition it has faced at the theater. A non-franchise action-thriller without a bankable lead actor could not have hoped to take down a spin-off animated feature (Puss in Boots) or the sequel to one of the most successful horror franchises of all time (Paranormal Activity 3), especially on Halloween weekend. Thankfully, a strong foreign presence has helped In Time already recover its modest $40 million budget, and I would only expect positive word-of-mouth to help drive further revenue. Plain and simple, if you are looking for something truly unexpected at the theater that is brought to life with the help of a recognizable and entertaining cast, you will enjoy In Time. At the very least, the film is far deeper and more though provoking than you could have ever imagined…I guarantee you will never look at the phrase “Time is Money” the same away again.
Overall Recommendation: High
