In Time

In Time is one of those films that has so many plot holes you could start driving though them now and not be finished until Saw XX gets released. Though this doesn’t always mean a bad film if you can suspend your disbelief and disengage brain for long enough, but the Swiss cheese on show here makes that a tricky proposition. Storyline wise we’re in 2161, where humans now stop ageing at 25 years and extra “life time” has replaced money. Basically, if you want to keep living after 25 you have to “earn” it. Someone who doesn’t earn it, but gets donated a huge chunk of time due to plot shenanigans, is Will (Justin Timberlake). Soon enough, with totty in tow (Amanda Seyfried – lost under a crazy wig), he’s on the run from goons who want the “time” for themselves. It’s actually an intriguing premise, but it appears the film makers didn’t quite know what to do with it and the screenplay smacks of making it up as you go along. Timberlake and Seyfried both appear lost as to how serious they’re meant to be taking it all and cop Cillian Murphy (who surely was only in this for the pay cheque) phones in a blank faced performance. Any film that has “time” as its central subject is always going to struggle on the continuity front and this is no exception with the addition of plenty of unintentionally hilarious moments plot wise to enjoy / endure as well. Most memorable of all though is the terrible special effects utilised during the now already infamous car crash scene. If you were unsure about which way the film was going up until that point, this will make your mind up for you. Its abysmal stuff and I can’t believe director Andrew Niccol isn’t squirming in his chair in embarrassment every time he sees it. Was it really worth saving money on such awful effects to the detriment that your film becomes a laughing stock? Surely it’s about time that film-makers and producers woke up and smelt the coffee in this area now? Seriously, how much money did they save by using a computer as opposed to rolling a real car down a hill? I doubt the difference is worth the scorn they are know getting, especially as word of mouth impacts on the box office. Any plus points? Visually this is pretty good, with the future having the classic dystopian feel and the cast all looking like models. (It’s never clear in the storyline though why everyone on the planet now looks like they’ve just walked off a Vogue shoot). Plus, there are some fantastic duds on show. If anyone can tell me where Alex Pettyfer (pretty decent in this as a quietly spoken villain) gets his shirts from I’d like to know. Niccol has decent form on the writing (The Truman Show) and directing (Lord Of War) front but he fails to sprinkle much magic dust here. What could have been a bit of dumb fun falls flat, especially in its attempts to make comments regarding social standing. If you do see it at least you’ll have some enjoyment at the end as you nominate your best “worst” moment of the film. For me it’s the classic moment when Timberlake has to open a safe belonging to Seyfried’s father and without a clue what the combination could be Seyfried suggests “Try Darwin’s birthday. He (her father) was a big fan”. Click Click Click. Safe opens. Unbelievable.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

For Timberlake fans only. Rating: 4/10.