In Time

Andrew Niccol is a high-concept science fiction writer/director. My favorite of his films is The Truman Show. I love that film and think that Jim Carey got screwed by the Academy. The Terminal is decent enough. But unlike the majority of nerds, I am not a fan of Gattaca. I watched it once when it first came to On Demand, and I did not understand all the love for it then.  I gave it another chance when a guy on my dorm floor spoke so highly of it, and I had similar feelings as the first time I saw it. Then, there is Lord of War. I truly hated this film by Niccol. I hated every aspect of it, every frame of it. It was so terrible, I would have relished the thought of having my fingernails pulled out by rusty pliers rather than finish that hunk of garbage. So, I went to see his latest film, In Time, with much trepidation.

In Time is set in an unknown yet not-too-distant future where human beings are engineered to stop aging at age twenty-five. At that point, a glowing counter on your forearm begins counting down to your death. Each person is given one year of time on their first and original twenty-fifth birthday. The catch being, time is now currency. Things cost time, not money. Everything is included: food, rent, even tollbooths. You can earn more time the same ways you earn money now: hard work and/or stealing. If you run out of time, you simply drop dead where you are.

It took the movie thirty minutes to explain the premise that I just explained in one paragraph. Niccol takes so long, and beats you over the head with his “world” that it is almost insulting. He must think this is your first movie-going experience…ever. Niccol painstakingly shows you the effects of time and the world in which this film takes place. He lays out all the rules of the world for you, one by one.

The story follows factory worker Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) who lives with his mother Rachel (Olivia Wilde). She is celebrating her fiftieth birthday, or twenty-fifth for the twenty-sixth time. (I know someone doing that with her twenty-ninth.) Anyway, Will and Rachel live in Region 12, which is a “poor region”. That is a nice way of saying ghetto.  After a chance meeting with a guy with over a century of time on his arm, this guy leaves it all to Will before timing himself out, meaning he commits suicide. This is where the movie finally picks up some steam. In my opinion, the movie should have started here.

Now, with that huge shift in time, the Timekeepers are dispatched to get it back to keep the balance. They are just what they sound like, keepers of time. They make sure time is allotted where it should be. The squad is lead by Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy). Will escapes his region and makes it to Region 4, the rich one. There he meets Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried), the daughter of “millionaire” Phillipe (Vincent Kartheiser). The Timekeepers follow Will to Weis’ house where Will escapes with Sylvia as his hostage.

Next, Sylvia falls for Will. Is it Stockholm syndrome? I don’t know, but it does seem that way. It turns into a Bonnie & Clyde/Robin Hood scenario as they begin robbing banks owned by Phillipe, and stealing time, only to give it away and buy protection from the locals. The rest of the film plays out as a cat-and-mouse between Raymond and the two fugitives.

As I mentioned above, the first act of the movie was painful and insulting. Niccol should have found a better way to convey the world in which this movie would take place. In Time also gets to be a bit too political and preachy for my taste. I did not really see that coming, and found it to be a bit heavy-handed at times.

I enjoyed the last two-thirds of In Time. It is really too bad that the first part of the movie is so dumb. In Time is ridiculous, but not to that point that it is so ridiculous that it is good. There is a good movie in there somewhere, but Niccol was unable to find it. It is possible that he is just too close to the project, since he both wrote and directed it. Or maybe, Niccol is just not a good director.

RATING: 4.5/10