At first thought, being mortal sucks. The thought of "everything" ending someday is a scary thought. Everyone feels that life is short and there isn't enough time to do everything on their bucket lists. But ironically, death is also the same fiber that pushes all of us to do great things. Mortality is a curse as it is a gift. Just think - would you do anything significant if you knew you had forever to do it? "In Time" is set in the near future where science has stopped aging and has made immortality a possibility - that is if you are part of the lucky few. Even in that world, they did acknowledge that mortality is important in keeping society stable and moving. While the film has an original concept that ensures it being better than your average film, it fails to capitalize itself into something bigger and greater. In short, it was an opportunity lost.
In a not-too-distant future, people has stopped aging at 25. To keep society stable, everyone has been genetically engineered with a body clock that gives them just one more year to live unless they earn extra "time" and when you run out of it, you automatically die. People are separated into various zones that define their economic status. Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is part of Zone 12 - the lowest earning zone where people earn time day-by-day. One night, Will meets a man who has more than a century worth of time. The man reveals that their society is designed specifically to let a few men gain "immortality" by killing off people like Will. The man also gives Will all of his time. Will decides to use his fortune for his mother who unfortunately runs out of time before Will is able to meet her. Will, in a fit of rage and a desire to make things just and fair, decides to rob the system into oblivion.
Here's the sure thing: "In Time" is more than adequate to entertain moviegoers with its creative and unique plot and frenetic pace with a barrage of non-stop action sequences. What it fails to do is build upon its premise not only in terms of its overall story but also the characters and the consistency that a scifi film demands. The biggest gripe we have with "In Time" is its lack of polish. There are pretty obvious loopholes that deter the whole experience like Will being a bad-ass driver when it's just his first time to drive or when a kidnapping occurs near the end and not one of the bodyguards call the cops. There's also the whole "rushed" feeling. The film never delves deeper into the world of "time currency". Do people die when they don't eat or drink? Do they get sick or is it necessary for them to still sleep? You get this sense that the envisioned world is just too big for the creators to handle and they just showed tidbits of nice ideas that never jived together. And looking at how the story went, it seems they shot themselves in the foot. Ironically, "In Time" tries to show the value of time when it's quite apparent that they lacked the foresight to really give enough time to create a better story and a more cohesive film.
Rating: 3 reels
Why you should watch it:
- it's premise is a refresher from what we usually see coming out from Hollywood
- the film never gets boring, in fact, it's quite fun to watch
Why you shouldn't watch it:
- the film suffered significantly with Justin Timberlake's amateurish acting job
- lacks polish and feels rushed especially for a scifi film
- lots of loopholes and scratch-your-head moments
In a not-too-distant future, people has stopped aging at 25. To keep society stable, everyone has been genetically engineered with a body clock that gives them just one more year to live unless they earn extra "time" and when you run out of it, you automatically die. People are separated into various zones that define their economic status. Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is part of Zone 12 - the lowest earning zone where people earn time day-by-day. One night, Will meets a man who has more than a century worth of time. The man reveals that their society is designed specifically to let a few men gain "immortality" by killing off people like Will. The man also gives Will all of his time. Will decides to use his fortune for his mother who unfortunately runs out of time before Will is able to meet her. Will, in a fit of rage and a desire to make things just and fair, decides to rob the system into oblivion.
Here's the sure thing: "In Time" is more than adequate to entertain moviegoers with its creative and unique plot and frenetic pace with a barrage of non-stop action sequences. What it fails to do is build upon its premise not only in terms of its overall story but also the characters and the consistency that a scifi film demands. The biggest gripe we have with "In Time" is its lack of polish. There are pretty obvious loopholes that deter the whole experience like Will being a bad-ass driver when it's just his first time to drive or when a kidnapping occurs near the end and not one of the bodyguards call the cops. There's also the whole "rushed" feeling. The film never delves deeper into the world of "time currency". Do people die when they don't eat or drink? Do they get sick or is it necessary for them to still sleep? You get this sense that the envisioned world is just too big for the creators to handle and they just showed tidbits of nice ideas that never jived together. And looking at how the story went, it seems they shot themselves in the foot. Ironically, "In Time" tries to show the value of time when it's quite apparent that they lacked the foresight to really give enough time to create a better story and a more cohesive film.
Rating: 3 reels
Why you should watch it:
- it's premise is a refresher from what we usually see coming out from Hollywood
- the film never gets boring, in fact, it's quite fun to watch
Why you shouldn't watch it:
- the film suffered significantly with Justin Timberlake's amateurish acting job
- lacks polish and feels rushed especially for a scifi film
- lots of loopholes and scratch-your-head moments
Comments
Post a Comment