|
www.kevacho.com
©2002-2024
Kevin Michael Vance
Writer - Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Go Back To Reviews
Title: IN TIME
Director: Andrew Niccol
Year: 2011
Reviewed: March 16, 2012
| Rating: |
|
 | |
 | |
| |
| |
Rice Cake-Lowest Rating |
[Rating Definitions]
|
|
|
IN TIME, the movie by writer/director/producer Andrew Niccol is not good, not good at all.
There are some very nice concepts in the piece. I enjoyed, very much, a number of themes throughout of the film; especially the overall theory that humans have been genetically engineered to live until they are 25, at which time they have a year remaining to live and then they die. Not to mention the concept of time used as currency. All of this, signified by a green glowing time clock affixed to every citizens, rich or poor, forearm. Time could be stolen or given away. You could gamble time, or work for more time. And time was, at its very essence, life. Fabulous and fun stuff really.
IN TIME fails, and fails miserably, in a few areas; first and foremost, the production design. Holy gods! I have seen better production on episodes of the television series STARGATE. IN TIME, got made for around 40 million dollars, which is nothing in movie-making terms, and paradoxically, a lot, considering the lack of any production, and or, set design. EQUILIBRIUM, one of my favorite dystopian films got made for half the amount, and its otherworldly quality, its conception of a future world, was lavish and lush in comparison to IN TIMEs barren and bereft sets. (More often than not, it appeared as if the director randomly picked a street in L.A., randomly threw in ten to fifteen extras, told Justin Timberlake to grab a nice outfit from his personal wardrobe, slapped up some neon, and yelled action. Furthermore, Mister Niccol, you cannot simply lather a bunch of black matte paint onto a muscle car add some pretty lights, play with the sound of their engines in post-production, and call it a future car. I know what you are doing, and you are not doing it well.) I would love to have seen even a modest attempt at creating a world. Unlike the one, I live in currently. But no effort was made, and thus I write. One other reason for the films dismal failure was casting. Timberlake was passable, but only laughably so. Seyfried was cute, but there was no fire, no passion. Her relationship between her and Timberlake was wooden and stilted. Cillian Murphy, whom I have always liked, ran haphazardly around the sets with a vacant look, sporting a black leather trench coat, which looked as if Mister Niccol had dredged it up from the vaults of the 1986 movie THE HIGHLANDER. The characters called the Minute Men, supposedly the bad guys, were utterly and painfully pathetic. They looked like they were a boy band challenging Justin and NSYNC to a dance off. Timberlakes and Seyfrieds characters in the movie end up being a bonnie and clyde duo taking notes from Robin Hood by stealing time and giving it back to the poor people living in the, surprisingly, clean ghettos. A better concept would have been to make them find a way to destroy the time clock on everyones arms, thereby no one can have 5 centuries, and everyone lives the way they are supposed to, knowing some day, some how, we all die.
IN TIME is bad. Therefore, I give it my lowest rating, a RICE CAKE rating.
|
|
