[Freya-dæg] In Time

As far as sci-fi movies go there seems to be few that have a really amazing premise and succeed in carrying it out. Duncan Jones' Moon is definitely a good, recent example of this. In Time could also have been. But as Rotten Tomatoes shows, even audiences (53%), though gentler than critics (37%) weren't incredibly impressed by it.

Let's get right to it. What's bad about this movie?

The concept, that time is now currency and when people run out of time they die, is a great one with awesome potential. But not enough is done with it. There are two or three scenes where the fact that characters only have "x" amount of time left really makes an impact (two of which happen during the chase-heavy last act) but otherwise time could easily be swapped in for money. This is definitely my biggest problem with the picture.

In fact, I feel like I could stop writing here. But, that would be unfair to just how this concept unfurls. Because the thing is, it's not just used for intellectual exercise. Instead it's pretty plainly used as a metaphor for the current financial situation in much of the world.

For example, in one "time zone" (exclusivist areas that have different costs of living to keep those with less time out and those with enough time in) live the elites, a bunch of people who throw decades and centuries around like water balloons on a hot day. These are definitely the minority (or, perhaps, the 1%-ers). The rest of the population of this city (it *is* all set in a single city, I'm pretty sure), is in the rest of the time zones. In true heavy handed fashion, the movie's hero comes from the poorest of these time zones (freely called "the ghetto" by many in the movie).

The hero (Will Salas, played relatively well by Justin Timberlake), seeks to spread the wealth of the few to the many, and more or less succeeds in doing so. By the end of the movie it's pretty clear that the pretense of time has been dropped and money may as well be freely subbed back in, since Salas and the ex-heiress Sylvie Weis (played by Amanda Seyfried) essentially become professional bank robbers. An attempt is made to make the movie more than this throughout, but this attempt is lackluster.

Built into the concept of people living on a set amount of time, is that time can be transferred between people. This transfer is done by clasping forearms while time transfers from one person to another. This is neat, albeit never really explained, and slightly confused in execution. Unfortunately, this confused execution of the transference idea stands as another strike against the "time as money as life-force" concept. Though it also introduces a little game I like to call "Time Chicken."

"Time Chicken" is a lot like arm wrestling, you clasp your opponent's forearm (as if to make a transfer) and then struggle to get your forearm on top of his or hers to drain his or her time away. However, this is where the rules of transferring get murky. In every other instance it looks like the forearm on top transfers time to the one on the bottom, ala an hourglass. But, in a game of "Time Chicken" it seems that the top sucks time up from the bottom.

I call it "Time Chicken" because part of the game's strategy (all of it, maybe) is to wait until your opponent is distracted by your quickly draining clock to turn the tide and put him or her into a state of such a shock that they do nothing until they have lost all of their time.

Salas makes a big deal out of the fact that his dad knew about this "surprise comeback" move, but because time doesn't transfer at lightning speed once you reversed your opponent's fortunes there's nothing but opportunity for him or her to come back and flip you over again. Unless your opponent is so surprised by the fact that you were letting them win that he or she unwittingly sits with slackened jaw until he or she has lost his or her last second. But that seems really unlikely. So, a third strike for concept execution.

Moving on from the concept itself (since it's struck out), the movie's characters aren't much to invest in. Standard poor boy wanting to do what's "right," standard rich girl sick of her protective father and seeking to rebel (or "live," as she says at one point).

There are other characters as well, but Salas' father alone seems like he could have been interesting because he hangs over Salas and Timekeeper Raymond Leon (played by Cillian Murphy) alike. But nothing definitive about the father is ever said and legends appear to have grown up around him months after his death. Legends that leave little about him clear.

At least the characters of the Timekeepers are moderately entertaining.

The idea of Timekeepers, those who make sure that time stays "properly" distributed is a neat and relatively well-executed one. But, again, not enough was done with them - why not have some kind of time-stasis for criminals? Or instead of trying to restrain Salas why not modify his clock so that it's left with five seconds but held in place unless he gets x meters away from Leon?

So much more could have been done with the Timekeepers, but instead they just make financial regulators (what they are in Niccol's metaphor) look cool, even if a little cowardly in the face of the 1%-ers.

But then, what about the good? I might have to dig deep for this one.

Well, there's a pretty tame skinny dipping scene? When Salas beats the ghetto gangster he pulls off some quick, impressive gun work? The guy who plays Philippe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser) kind of looks like Dave Foley from Kids in the Hall?

Really, there's nothing good here that stands up to much scrutiny. I really wanted to like this movie, the preview did it's job excellently when I saw it in the theatre - I was completely roped in by the premise and excited at what Andrew Niccol might do with it. But it fell flat.

So, with a heavy heart, I've got to say, Freya - leave this one where it lay.