In Time
Directed by: Andrew Niccol
Starring: Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfreid,
Cillian Murphy, Olivia Wilde
Rated:PG-13 for violence, some sexuality and partial nudity, and strong language
The pseudo-intellectual action film In Time is what you get when you take the Nolans’ out of Inception or Spielberg out of Minority Report; a film that tries to be smarter, wittier, more intelligent, and more exciting than it truly is. Written and directed by Andrew Niccol (of Gattica and Truman Show fame) In Time is based in a futuristic world where, thanks to endless upgrades in science, humans never age past twenty five, and therefore are killed off when a transplanted timer in their arm runs out. Because of this, currency literally becomes time on your arm-clock, which people can add and spend like cash. This concept could have spurned a unique story, but Niccol seemingly chooses a rather boring plot of turning his protagonist (a decent Justin Timberlake) and his female accomplice (Amanda Seyfreid) into a Robin Hoods of sorts, whom rob time from the rich (who have already been alive for centuries) to give to the dying poor twenty-somethings in the slums. While craftier storytellers have infuse their nuances into their plots (like the dream structures of Inception or the pre-cogs of Minority Report), the arm-clocks has almost nothing to do with the story; one could have simply used money, and the plot wouldn’t have really changed. No one asks why they have these clocks, how to remove them, how they actually kill you when the clock stops, and if they can somehow “hack” them to add more time. While this might be a moot point (every sci-fi film has some plot holes), the world that Niccol has created seems to be built on some simplicity (such as how, despite living in an age of wireless internet, the only way to add time is by holding a bar above your arm, or how twisting your arm during a handshake can steal someone else’s), so it’s impossible not to expect some basic answers, like who put the clocks in their arms to begin with?
These plot holes exist because In Time is a message driven rather than plot driven film. In my opinion, Niccol wasn’t interested in the story or concept, but wanted to make a film depicting how the wealthy are literally living off the poor, and the arm-clocks was the best he could come up with. However, message driven stories always are problematic and never feel natural; the characters, dialogue, and action of In Time seem muted and contrived throughout. Niccol even fails to realize that his villains in the story (the wealthy class) are really only the transplanted villains of the story; they aren’t the ones putting clocks and killing people at age 25, and despite their wealth, they, too are subjected to those rules, so the whole rebellion motif really is misconstrued. I believe Niccol would have had more success making a documentary for the Occupy Wall-Street crowd than trying to make this sci-fi action thriller fit his message.
Starring: Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfreid,
Cillian Murphy, Olivia Wilde
Rated:PG-13 for violence, some sexuality and partial nudity, and strong language
The pseudo-intellectual action film In Time is what you get when you take the Nolans’ out of Inception or Spielberg out of Minority Report; a film that tries to be smarter, wittier, more intelligent, and more exciting than it truly is. Written and directed by Andrew Niccol (of Gattica and Truman Show fame) In Time is based in a futuristic world where, thanks to endless upgrades in science, humans never age past twenty five, and therefore are killed off when a transplanted timer in their arm runs out. Because of this, currency literally becomes time on your arm-clock, which people can add and spend like cash. This concept could have spurned a unique story, but Niccol seemingly chooses a rather boring plot of turning his protagonist (a decent Justin Timberlake) and his female accomplice (Amanda Seyfreid) into a Robin Hoods of sorts, whom rob time from the rich (who have already been alive for centuries) to give to the dying poor twenty-somethings in the slums. While craftier storytellers have infuse their nuances into their plots (like the dream structures of Inception or the pre-cogs of Minority Report), the arm-clocks has almost nothing to do with the story; one could have simply used money, and the plot wouldn’t have really changed. No one asks why they have these clocks, how to remove them, how they actually kill you when the clock stops, and if they can somehow “hack” them to add more time. While this might be a moot point (every sci-fi film has some plot holes), the world that Niccol has created seems to be built on some simplicity (such as how, despite living in an age of wireless internet, the only way to add time is by holding a bar above your arm, or how twisting your arm during a handshake can steal someone else’s), so it’s impossible not to expect some basic answers, like who put the clocks in their arms to begin with?
These plot holes exist because In Time is a message driven rather than plot driven film. In my opinion, Niccol wasn’t interested in the story or concept, but wanted to make a film depicting how the wealthy are literally living off the poor, and the arm-clocks was the best he could come up with. However, message driven stories always are problematic and never feel natural; the characters, dialogue, and action of In Time seem muted and contrived throughout. Niccol even fails to realize that his villains in the story (the wealthy class) are really only the transplanted villains of the story; they aren’t the ones putting clocks and killing people at age 25, and despite their wealth, they, too are subjected to those rules, so the whole rebellion motif really is misconstrued. I believe Niccol would have had more success making a documentary for the Occupy Wall-Street crowd than trying to make this sci-fi action thriller fit his message.
No comments:
Post a Comment