Well, after a long day of five movie reviews, one mom joke, a tv review, and an entertainment editorial, I wind down the site today with my favorite movie this week, In Time. Now this being Halloween, I’ve tried to keep it to that theme (people can dress up as the robots of Rock ‘Em, Sock ‘Em or The Three Musketeers, Dexter, PA3, and The Thing are all firmly in the horror camp) but the only thing scary about In Time is how few people saw it this past weekend.
In Time is practically the ONLY original idea in the wide release marketplace right now (Footloose is a remake, The Thing is a remake of a remake, Puss in Boots is a spin-off, The Three Musketeers is dead repetitive, Real Steel is Rock ‘Em, Sock ‘Em, PA3 is a sequel, Johnny English is a sequel, Ides of a March is based on a play, Moneyball is based on a true story, The Rum Diary is based on a book that’s based on a life, Anonymous is based on horse shit, etc.) and somehow the critics saw fit to dump on it. I don’t know why critics don’t give out ambition points for a new wide release at least trying but their complete lack of support for a movie like In Time over pure crap like Puss in Boots is ridiculous. This movie is much, much better than people are making it out to be and some usually sharp critics should be ashamed of panning it. [Them doing so is part of the same risk-averse strategy that gets nothing but old ideas made in the first place.] It’s the only movie I’ve seen recently that hints at our deep income divide, and I’m glad at least one movie is saying something about it instead of irrelevant “dramas” about nothing (we’ll get to you next week Martha Marcy May Marlene).
What Works: The premise of a future where time is literally currency (a cup of coffee is four minutes of your life, a new sports car is 50 years) and the rich can live forever since they can keep buying time really works. Amanda Seyfried is a total beauty in the leading female role (it’s also hard not to like a movie with Olivia Wilde and Yaya Dacosta). And it feels great that a Hollywood movie is actually acknowledging the way poor people feel in this country, although allegorical, you get into the mindset of a lower class that feels like they’re literally running out of time. I also like that In Time doesn’t cop out by showing it’s all the work of a single evil billionaire (a la the upcoming Tower Heist which makes it look like a single Bernie Madoff is responsible for all the world’s troubles) and it’s just an entire system that desperately needs to change.
What Doesn’t Work: Some critics have really panned the movie’s shift towards action in the second act but this is only worth grumbling about if you’ve NEVER SEEN A MOVIE IN THE LAST THIRTY YEARS. Shifting towards action once you’ve established your premise is more or less the norm and I don’t get why they would finally draw the line on this movie after giving a free pass to every other that’s come along. The one quibble I have (and that no one but me would make) is that In Time is the rare future set movie that actually feels like it gets the future, but they make the painfully old fashioned mistake of having the solitary black woman/white man couple (Johnny Galecki and Yaya DaCosta) doomed to one of them dying…That gets a little old to those of us starving for more positive portrayals of black woman/white male relationships that don’t make them look bound for a tragic fate.
What I Would Have Done Differently: Sure, you can be bitchy and say that maybe someone other than Justin Timberlake should have been in the lead role or that Amanda Seyfried’s wig isn’t entirely convincing, but why split hairs over non-sense when the bigger picture looks so good?