Actual grade: 8/10
(For a full explanation of my grading system, check out this post.)
Before attending this film, I thought IN TIME had one of the most intriguing concepts for an action film since INCEPTION. After a summer where the idea of action was largely: Giant Robots Fighting Other Giant Robots! or, Aliens Shooting At Badass Cowboys!, it's refreshing to see a movie that is simultaneously targeted at a mass, action-loving audience, and also attempting to take the genre to a slightly higher level. So I was optimistically looking forward to the film, though not expecting it to be anything earth-shattering.
Indeed, while this isn't anywhere near the greatest action movie ever made, it was surprisingly smart, effective and timely. The premise of a future where time is literally money is so straightforward it could easily have been ham-fisted and ridiculous. Instead, the boiling down of our entire economy to its barest bones is a chillingly potent plot device. Because when you peel away the layers of credit cards and mortgages and loans, time is really what society runs on: I'm willing to spend x amount of time to earn y amount of money, and then I judge a cup of coffee to be worth z percent of the time it took me to earn the money I'm spending. IN TIME, while a futuristic metaphor, is really just a close look at what happens when a very small percentage of people control a very large percentage of the wealth. In this film's case, it means that 99% of the population spends their entire lives scrounging for enough time to survive through the day, while the super-rich get to live forever.
It's a farfetched yet oddly prescient idea, especially considering what's happening on Wall Street as we speak. This film's timing is impeccable, especially considering how long it takes a film to make the journey all the way from conception to the screen. The screenwriter probably came up with the idea at least two or three, maybe as much as five or ten years ago. The seeds of our nation's current economic climate would of course have been planted back then, but the fact that they have exploded to the forefront of the people's consciousness in the past couple of months is extremely fortuitous for the makers of IN TIME.
This film could easily be the manifesto for Occupy Wall Street: a grim look at what our nation could come to if things continue the way they are -- if the rich continue to get rich and the poor get poorer. The main characters of IN TIME cry for the redistribution of wealth, just like the protestors on Wall Street. The big differences are that the wealth in the film is time instead of money, and the characters break into banks and steal it instead of occupying financial centers. But the core ideas are the same, and are probably ones that will resonate with many viewers, in the way that the pro-environmental message of AVATAR did. Was AVATAR heavy-handed? Did it lack subtlety? Of course. But that simple message also managed to reach more people than any movie's message in the history of cinema. The fact is that the subtle, artsy independent films with deep meanings and hidden truths aren't reaching the masses and inevitably end up preaching to the choir. So we should count ourselves lucky when a star-studded, mass-marketed action movie delivers some sort of a progressive message, even though that message may be boiled down and basic. Awareness is being raised in people around the country who may not even think twice when they hear the words "redistribution of wealth" or "Occupy Wall Street."
For that reason alone, this film was elevated above the 6 or 7 I may have given it otherwise. Because truth be told, as an action movie, it's not amazing. Solid, but not superb. Justin Timberlake proves again that he has the best managers around, as his film career continues to ascend to new heights. He has made one of the most effective music-to-film transitions in recent years. This is the first time he has headlined a film by himself and he proves capable of carrying at least a basic action-driven plot. Amanda Seyfried is stunningly gorgeous and thrillingly rebellious as the daughter of the richest man in the world. The pair has incredible chemistry. And as wide as the supporting cast is, IN TIME is really Mr. Timberlake's and Ms. Seyfried's, as the film morphs surprisingly (at least for me) into a futuristic BONNIE AND CLYDE about halfway through.
That's not to say the rest of the cast isn't excellent, which it is. The basic conceit of the film is that no one ages beyond 25, so the entire cast is filled with young, up-and-coming actors at the top of their game. Vincent Kartheiser (MAD MEN) is slimy and repugnant as the wealthiest man in the world. Matt Bomer (WHITE COLLAR) appears as a 100-plus-year-old who's tired of being immortal. Cillian Murphy (INCEPTION) is relentless as a Timekeeper, charged with maintaining order in an increasingly unstable world. And Olivia Wilde (HOUSE) is given the initially-hysterical role as Justin Timberlake's mother (hysterical just because of the idea of her being anyone's mother). The film's best sequence occurs early on and involves Olivia Wilde's character -- you'll know it when you see it. I was shocked when this film almost had me in tears a mere twenty minutes in.
To recap, this isn't the action-iest of all action movies. There are no explosions, a couple car chases, and some gun play, but it's more of a what-if, futuristic look at our current economic climate, with a couple nifty action sequences thrown in to attract a wider audience. I hope many people go and see this movie, just for the chance that they might talk about it afterwards. The best movies inspire debate, not just about themselves, but about their applications to the world at large. For IN TIME, those parallels are clear and easy to draw. They are also incredibly important and deserve to be talked about.
What did you think, Fellow Addicts? Did you feel that the film was elevated by its real-world applications? Or did you find it a run-of-the-mill action flick? Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!
No comments:
Post a Comment