In Time

Never has the phrase ‘Time is Money’ been interpreted in so sinisterly literal a way as in Andrew Niccol’s In Time. Set in a dystopian future where time is the currency and human beings, engineered to stop aging at 25, must earn time to keep their clock ticking, this film gives itself the ambitious task of exploring the limitations of capitalism. The stakes could not be higher. Disappointing then that In Time is nowhere near as radical as it has the potential to be.

The best that this movie has to offer is confusion. It is caught somewhere in between an action-thriller and a gritty social commentary. There are moments when the plot skims the surface of a potentially fascinating insight (such as the reaction of a so-called liberal to the experience of poverty), but these moments ultimately fail to explore the implications properly. The film seems to conclude, with relatively little exploration, that capitalism equals evil, anarchy equals good. The simplicity of the argument undermines any power it might have had, but then a studio production was hardly going to make any serious attempt to undermine the system. On the other hand, there are some reasonable chases and fights, but nothing especially noteworthy. Crucially, although the concept gave a certain urgency to the proceedings with the characters rarely more than 24 hours away from extinction, its full potential for causing tension was rarely exploited. The effect was more of drudgery, which might have been appropriate for a social critique, but was rather unhelpful for In Time’s thriller credentials. In Time never quite decides what it wants to be but rather continues to hold back, leaving us woefully dissatisfied when the credits roll.

There are other issues too. The writing is one of the chief problems. Not only are many of the lines wooden and highly self-conscious, but the characterisation is non-existent. Amanda Seyfried’s character, although important for the plot, might have been named simply ‘Beautiful Hostage’ (as many of the promotional synopsises dubbed her) for all the depth she was given. Similarly Justin Timberlake could have held a white sheet of paper in front of his face with ‘Non-descript Hero’ written on it and still have fulfilled the requirements of his role.

Of course there was some merit in the movie. The costumes were truly gorgeous, the acting was unexciting but painless and the colourless style of the set in New Greenwich (the rich zone) was a nice touch, making you both feel the wealth and sense its essential emptiness. I did feel there should have been more contrast between the rich and poor areas – more colour, more dirt in the ghetto would have made this better – but there’s really very little to complain about here. All in all, this was still a worthwhile watch. Certainly pretty to look at and the concept was intriguing enough to hold my attention (though the surprise appearance of Cillian Murphy and Alex Pettyfer may have helped). I wouldn’t be in a hurry to see this in a cinema, but as a vehicle for essay procrastination, In Time might just fit the bill.

See In Time at York's Reel Cinema. For more information visit http://york.reelcinemas.co.uk/

Add Comment

You must log in to submit a comment.