I was looking forward to seeing “In Time,” Justin Timberlake’s new movie, because the premise intrigued me. What if time literally was money? Could you earn enough to keep yourself alive every day?
Now that we’ve seen the flick, I can honestly say . . . meh. Just not my cup of java, I guess.
“In Time” is a sci-fi film set in the future where life starts and stops at age 25: That’s when people stop physically aging, but it’s also when their “life clock” starts working. They have to earn time by working or stealing those precious minutes, hours, and years (time can be transferred by hand). People live in time zones according to their wealth . . . or lack of it.
Will Salas, Timberlake’s character, lives with his mom, Rachel (Olivia Wilde), in a low-class time zone. A time millionaire, Henry Hamilton (Matt Borner), shifts a century of his life to Will because he’s 105 years old and tired of living, and then times himself out (commits suicide).
Will thinks he’s got it made, but, of course, a twist must happen: His mom tragically runs out of time before her son can give her the minutes she needs to save her life. Naturally, that makes him mad. Time to stick it to The Man!
All those transferred years mean that Will can travel through a bunch of time zones to New Greenwich where the rich live. However, Will was seen on a surveillance camera near Hamilton’s body and is accused of stealing those precious years. Soon he’s on the run from a tenacious Timekeeper (Cillian Murphy) who wants to bring Will to justice.
After the Timekeeper catches him and confiscates all but two hours of his life, Will kidnaps Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried), a mogul’s daughter, and escapes back to the ghetto. The two of them run all over tarnation . . . while Sylvia wears that ever-practical track ensemble of a short dress and three-inch heels . . . robbing her father’s Time Banks and, like Robin Hood, giving the richness of time back to the poor.
Why didn’t they stop to steal casual clothes and comfortable shoes from a JC Penney while they were at it?
The main reason I didn’t think “In Time” was all that and a bag of chips was because the acting was uninspiring and boring. Too bad Meryl Streep and Morgan Freeman don’t look like they’re 25!
If time truly is money, should you spend both on this movie? I’d advise waiting for the rental.